Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I beg to move,
That the several amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made.

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 89, line 4, leave out 'Chairman' and insert 'Chairmen'.

Standing Order 103, line 4, leave out 'Chairman' and insert 'Chairmen'.

Standing Order 111, line 9, leave out 'six' and insert 'seven'.

Standing Order 111, line 10, leave out second 'Chairman' and insert 'Chairmen'.

Standing Order 132, line 12, leave out 'the' and insert 'either'.

Standing Order 238, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 3.

These Amendments are consequential upon changes recently made in the Public Business Standing Orders relating to the appointment of a Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Northern Ireland

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of State for Defence what steps he is taking to improve the accommodation and amenities of British troops in Ulster.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of State for Defence what action he is taking to improve the accommodation and amenities of British troops serving in Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith): I would draw the hon. Members' attention to the reply to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on 25th October last. Further accommodation improvements envisaged include equipment for canteens; cleaning, partitioning and repair of temporary accommodation; and the provision in temporary accommodation of floor-polishing machines, vacuum cleaners, industrial waste disposal units and washing machines. We have also introduced a number of further improvements in amenities. These include the provision of more coin-operated telephone boxes and television sets; free newspapers; concessional air fares and other leave travel concessions; a welfare agency staffed by members of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service; and funds for the hire of civilian coaches for welfare and recreational purposes.—[Vol. 823, c. 263.]

Mr. Cronin: While appreciating the hon. Gentleman's good intentions, may I ask him whether it is not the case that a large proportion of the troops in Northern Ireland spend their off-duty time in cold, wet, insanitary, uncomfortable, overcrowded conditions? Is this not putting a strain on the continued good humour and tolerance of the British troops? Will the hon. Gentleman accelerate in every possible way the steps to improve their amenities?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I would not for a moment dispute that there are many soldiers in Northern Ireland living in accommodation which leaves much to be desired. However, I emphasise most strongly that everything possible is being done about this with considerable speed, and I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the announcement made not long ago in another place about an additional £½ million which will be used to help make more comfortable the many undesirable places where soldiers have to stay in order to carry out their duties.

Mr. Goodhart: While thanking my hon. Friend for the strenuous efforts that he is making to improve the situation, may I ask him to bear in mind that it will take far more than £½ million to put right all the accommodation deficiencies? As we are trying to boost the


economy of Ulster, would it not be a good idea if some pump-priming went into providing better accommodation for the soldiers? Is my hon. Friend aware that it is intolerable that avoidable discomfort should be added to unavoidable danger for our troops?

Mr. Johnson Smith: The £½ million to which I referred is for those things which meet the more personal needs of soldiers in accommodation which is undesirable but which it is necessary for them to inhabit, if I may put it that way, to discharge their duties—that is, accommodation which is placed tactically in volatile areas. In addition to what I have said, programmes are under way for a more permanent type of accommodation. I am satisfied that we have had excellent co-operation from the Department of the Environment and that the work could not have been done more quickly. Hon. Members should bear in mind that we have had to meet the needs of increased numbers of soldiers.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the Minister aware that one of the best ways to improve the welfare of our soldiers in Northern Ireland is to make much better the public personal relationships that exist between them and the mass of the Roman Catholic people in the North of Ireland? Will he issue instructions to this effect to the G.O.C. in Northern Ireland? It is imperative that he do so because the situation there is deteriorating.

Mr. Johnson Smith: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the G.O.C. attaches—and certainly I do—the greatest importance to maintaining and sustaining the best possible relationship with the Catholic members of the community. I am bound to say that in the course of the visits that I have made to Northern Ireland, I have always been struck by the willingness of the Army to maintain good relationships with Catholics.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the progress of operations in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of State for Defence what progress is being made by the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland towards achieving his operational objectives.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): By their vigorous operations to combat terrorist activities, the security forces continue to make inroads into the strength of the I.R.A.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the recent and commendable operations and captures by Her Majesty's Forces, may we be assured that for the sake of innocent life there will be no let-up in lawful, authorised and rigorous interrogations?

Lord Balniel: Interrogation and questioning of wanted men will, of course, continue, but in so doing we will bear in mind that the Compton Committee has reported and that the matter is under consideration by the Committee of Privy Councillors.

Mr. Cronin: While one wishes to express admiration for the excellent work done by the troops in Northern Ireland, may I ask whether it is not the case that there has been no real improvement in the military situation in recent months and that there is no likelihood of improvement while our troops are confronted with a hostile population? Is it not essential that the Government should take much more swift action to obtain a political solution?

Lord Balniel: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because the military efficiency of the operations is steadily increasing, the number of wanted men being arrested is steadily increasing and the seizure of arms is increasing. But it would be unwise to speculate about when one can bring this very serious situation to an end.

Mr. Stratton Mills: Is my hon. Friend aware that I endorse what he says about the increasing effectiveness of the work of the security forces? Is he further aware that the fantastic response by the people of Northern Ireland, of all communities, to the Lord Mayor of Belfast's Christmas Fund—at the rate of £1,000 a day—for comforts for the troops shows how highly they are considered by the people of Northern Ireland?

Lord Balniel: I agree with my hon. Friend. The measure of the improvement can be gauged from the fact that during the last four weeks the number of arrests of wanted men has been 73, 41, 110 and 109, respectively.

Mr. John Morris: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us that the G.O.C. Northern Ireland is nearer to achieving his objectives than he was three months ago?

Lord Balniel: I think that the right hon. Gentleman would be unwise to press me to speculate as to when this terrorist campaign can be brought to an end. All I can say is that the grip on the terrorist organisation is steadily and inexorably being tightened. This is a purpose which, I believe, the whole House supports.

Mr. David Steel: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will enable army units operating in Northern Ireland to receive the standard overseas allowance, especially in cases where these units have been withdrawn from overseas.

Mr. G. Johnson Smith: I assume the hon. Member is referring to local overseas allowance. This is not a standard allowance but is assessed separately for each overseas theatre to compensate for the extra cost of living compared with that in the United Kingdom. It would not therefore be appropriate to pay the allowance to troops serving in any part of the United Kingdom, although, of course, the family left in B.A.O.R. continue to receive their share of the overseas allowances.

Mr. Steel: Is it not unfair that troops who have been existing in reasonably pleasant conditions, say, in Germany and who find themselves transferred of necessity to unpleasant conditions in Northern Ireland should at the same time suffer loss of income? This surely cannot be right. Will the Minister look at it again?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I understand the hon. Member's concern. Financially speaking, in real terms a soldier in Northern Ireland is not worse off. Income in B.A.O.R. is related to costs in B.A.O.R. Similarly, the income of a soldier in Northern Ireland is related to costs there. If the hon. Member has a particular case in mind and will let me know the details, I will write to him.

Mr. Tapsell: While there may well be a case for paying a special hardship allowance to Servicemen in Northern Ireland at present, will my hon. Friend stress that the troops there are not overseas but at home, as he has said, and that even to suggest the payment of an

overseas allowance is entirely to misrepresent the situation?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I accept my hon. Friend's last point. The general point which the House might consider is that the duties in which Servicemen are called upon to engage in Northern Ireland are accepted as part of the normal terms and conditions of service. It has not been the custom in the past, nor is it now, to pay extra money for such duties.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of State for Defence how many members of the security forces have been murdered and how many injured, as a result of the Irish Republican Army terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland since 12th August, 1969.

Mr. G. Johnson Smith: Up to this morning 38 Regular Army, two Ulster Defence Regiment and 14 Royal Ulster Constabulary personnel had been killed; and 330 members of the Armed Forces had been admitted to hospital as a result of security operations. I regret that information on numbers of R.U.C. injured is not available.

Mr. McMaster: In view of the increasing tempo, in recent weeks and months, of these cowardly attacks on the Army and police, both on and off duty, some while bravely attempting to defuse bombs and booby traps, will my hon. Friend assure me that the Army will take all steps necessary to discover and arrest these terrorists, murderers and bombers in order to protect innocent civilians as well as the Army and the police?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I am glad to be able to give my hon. Friend that assurance. From 9th August until 24th November this year, 1,162 people were arrested and the number of arrests of men on the wanted list for the period 20th October to 24th November was 465.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the Minister aware that more of our soldiers have been killed in Northern Ireland than during the whole of the Aden campaign? Does not this show how imperative it is to bring about a political solution immediately rather than a military one?

Mr. Johnson Smith: It is a source of great sorrow to all Members of the House of Commons that anyone should


lose his life or be wounded in the cause of these activities, but I am sure the hon. Member would agree that there can be no hope of any political solution until we have managed to get on top of the terrorists.

Mr. Walden: Is the Minister aware, however, that it is exactly that proposition that some of us are coming increasingly to doubt? We do not wish to say anything about what the Army does—it has been magnificent—but would not the Minister agree that the idea of first beating the gunmen and then taking a political initiative is exactly the sort of policy which has led to disasters elsewhere by other nations in other lands? Would it not be more sensible to try to beat the gunmen while taking a political initiative?

Mr. Johnson Smith: With respect the hon. Member, who follows this matter closely, must read what I have said. I did not say that we should beat the gunmen first and then have a political solution. I have never suggested that, neither have my hon. Friends. Nor has any member of the Government suggested it. What I am suggesting is that one cannot have a political solution and expect it to work when there are, in some parts of Northern Ireland, conditions where terrorism holds sway. The constitution cannot work in those circumstances. I beg the hon. Member to bear in mind that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is at all times seeking to obtain conditions from his point of view which will make it possible for political solutions to take place.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement about recruitment for the Ulster Defence Regiment, and about the rôle of the regiment.

Mr. G. Johnson Smith: I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the strength of the Ulster Defence Regiment on 24th November was just over 5,500, an increase of 1,300 since mid-September. I would add that applications to join the regiment are still coming in at an encouraging rate of over 250 a week as compared with less than 50 a week earlier in the year. The rôle of the regiment remains unchanged.

Mr. Goodhart: While paying tribute to the excellent work of the Ulster Defence Regiment, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that the good recruiting figures might be even better if the regiment were given a more positive and more mobile rôle?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I would not accept that the regiment has been given a rôle which is not important and worthwhile. It carries out numerous and widely distributed static guard duties. It also has patrolling duties and as its strength grows it will be possible to allocate duties nearer members' homes to an increasing degree.

Mr. Hattersley: Does the Minister recall that the previous Government gave assurances that the weapons of the regiment would be centralised and not held in individual members' homes? Does that assurance still hold good or are weapons now being taken home by individual members?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I have always understood that in certain very limited circumstances, both under the previous Administration and under the present one, some members of the regiment may have their weapons at home. There has, however, been no change in policy so far as I know.

Mr. Stratton Mills: While recognising my hon. Friend's contribution to the expansion of this force, may I ask what measures are being taken to speed up the vetting procedures for men applying to join the regiment?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. We must always ensure that our vetting procedures are not speeded up at the cost of efficiency and fairness. A few weeks ago the procedure took about six weeks. As we are specially anxious to capture the enthusiasm of Ulstermen we have shortened the period to four weeks, and obviously we will try to bring it down still further.

Mr. Walden: Since, admittedly against precedent, the last Government, for very good and sufficient reasons, gave the religious breakdown of the regiment, it would interest us greatly to know how many Roman Catholics are now serving, since it is obviously essential that the force remains balanced.

Mr. Johnson Smith: I have always been willing to give the balance between Catholics and Protestants. It is important that we should know what the balance is and, at the same time, pay tribute to those Catholics who, often against intimidation, joined the regiment or have remained in it. At the start of the year the Roman Catholic element in the regiment was 4 per cent. of officers and 15 per cent. of soldiers. In October the figures were 8 per cent. for officers and nearly 11 per cent. for soldiers. There has been a levelling off since then and a little over 8 per cent. of both officers and soldiers are Roman Catholics. I should add that all members of the Northern Ireland community are encouraged to join this non-sectarian regiment.

Mr. George Cunningham: asked the Minister of State for Defence what plans he has to introduce legislation to indemnify members of the Armed Forces who have committed the criminal assaults described in the Compton Report.

Lord Balniel: I do not accept that the Compton Report supports the imputations of criminal assault made by the hon. Member. If indemnifying legislation of this nature were required it would be a matter for the Northern Ireland Government.

Mr. Cunningham: In view of the necessarily emotive nature of this subject, will the Minister permit me to say that this Question is not intended to reflect on the courageous activity of British troops in preventing the two communities in Northern Ireland from destroying each other? While he and his colleagues have not been prepared to take the views of some of us during the last week that the activities described in the report are not only amoral but illegal, will he take account of the views expressed in The Times today showing in detail that those who have committed these acts lay themselves open to criminal prosecution? Will he agree that those who have done so—soldiers, officers and Ministers—lay themselves open, Ministers in particular, to a charge of conspiracy to commit criminal assault? In those circumstances—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] In those circumstances will the Minister also bear in mind that his refusal to allow me to see one of the implements used on that occasion could be regarded as a means of

preventing a Member of Parliament from taking the action necessary to bring criminal proceedings against the Minister? Will he—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is quite enough. I call upon the Minister to reply.

Lord Balniel: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman shares the Government's view, although he finds a very odd way of expressing it, that the reputation of our soldiers for discipline and restraint remains untarnished following a scrutiny of their conduct. The Compton Inquiry found that in some cases detainees suffered ill treatment and a measure of unintended hardship. Whether this amounted to criminal acts on the part of the soldiers is a matter that can only properly be decided by the Northern Ireland courts although in my view it most certainly does not.

Mr. Speaker: No. 21, Mrs. Fenner.

Mr. John Morris: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have called the next Question. [Interruption.] Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. If we have very long supplementary questions, other hon. Members are squeezed out.

Mr. Cunningham: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Wellbeloved: On a point of order. I am sorry to take up part of Question Time, but there is an important principle here. This is a matter of great interest not only to the people of Ulster but to this Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "After Questions."] This is an important issue and the Opposition Front Bench spokesman has not had an opportunity of commenting upon it.

Mr. Speaker: I am trying to carry out the injunctions of the Select Committee on Procedure with regard to Question Time. Mrs. Fenner, Question No. 21.

Mr. John Morris: I hesitate to detain the House for a moment longer than is necessary, Mr. Speaker, but I sought to catch your eye immediately my hon. Friend sat down. In those circumstances I ask leave to put my question.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot grant that now because the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) has said that he intends to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member wishes to raise a point of order, will he do it at the end of Question Time?

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of State for Defence what arrangements are now being made by the Army for the protection of police stations from attack by armed Irish Republican Army groups in Northern Ireland.

Lord Balniel: The Army—including the Ulster Defence Regiment—will guard as many stations as the operational situation and the Regular and U.D.R. manpower available in Northern Ireland permit. There has been an increase recently in the number of stations at which full-time or part-time guards are provided: this number was 76 in all at 19th November, compared with 61 at 20th October. The remaining stations are covered by Army patrols.

Mr. McMaster: While thanking my noble Friend for that reply, may I ask him, in view of the deliberate and well-planned attacks carried out on the police both on and off duty and on their homes, to see that priority is given to protecting the stations and individual policemen in the interests of the whole community?

Lord Balniel: I appreciate the importance of the point but my hon. Friend will understand that to tie down troops on static guard duties more than is absolutely necessary diverts them from other tasks when they could more effectively and actively take the initiative in combating terrorism.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does the Minister recognise that we cannot protect anyone, even policemen, by methods of illegality? What kind of legal power is there for officers of the R.U.C. or the British Armed Forces to engage in the methods of interrogation disclosed in the Compton Report whereby they physically assaulted men, put them up against the wall and put sacks over their heads?

Lord Balniel: I hardly see that that arises from this Question, but the interpretation of the law is a matter for the Northern Ireland courts.

Mr. John Morris: In view of the gravity of the matters canvassed in the Question and the supplementary question, and in the light of the answer given earlier, will the Minister give an assurance that because of the need adequately to protect our courageous forces and so that there shall be no improper use of force to extract information, there will be a statement by the Attorney-General before the Ulster debate? There is grave concern on this matter.

Lord Balniel: We have already debated this subject in the House and there is to be a further debate today an Northern Ireland. The procedures followed were within the rules of interrogation laid down by the previous Administration. [HON. MEMBERS:" No."] They did not involve assaults on those under interrogation and, as the House knows, a Committee of Privy Councillors under a most eminent judge has been appointed to look at this difficult and important matter.

Gipsy Encampment (Bedfordshire)

Mr. Skeet: asked the Minister of State for Defence why he is not prepared to issue proceedings for trespass for the removal of a gipsy encampment on Ministry land in the village of Clapham, Bedfordshire when the villagers have complained to him about lowering of standards and general nuisance.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Ian Gilmour): The Government are reluctant to seek the removal of gipsy encampments by court action, when there is no obvious alternative site.

Mr. Skeet: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Caravan Act, 1968, is no answer to an action of trespass? Is he further aware that the view locally is that the Minister is proving insensitive to the hardship and difficulty that has been created by these people, who have been there for two months? May we have an assurance that he will come to the site and speak to the local people?

Mr. Gilmour: I am fully aware of the feelings of both my hon. Friend and his constituents but he must appreciate that forced removal of the gipsies would merely transfer the problem as well as cause hardship to the gipsy families; and it is the responsibility of the county council to provide an alternative site.

Military Expenditure

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of State for Defence what are the most recent figures showing the share of the British gross national product devoted to military spending compared with that for other Western European countries in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and the approximate annual saving if the former were cut to the average proportion of the latter; and what steps he is taking towards such an equalisation.

Lord Balniel: Since the answer involves a number of figures, I will with permission circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. But on the latest available figures, Britain spent in 1970 5·7 per cent. of her gross national product on defence as compared with an average for N.A.T.O. Europe of 4·2 per cent. If British defence spending were cut to 4·2 per cent. of G.N.P., there would be a saving of the order of £600 million. The third part of the Question does not arise as this would be contrary to the stated aims of Her Majesty's Government in respect of defence on taking office.

Mr. Allaun: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that this £600 million could be spent on other and better things for the good of the country? Could he not go further and do as the French Government are doing in reducing the defence share of the French gross national product to 3 per cent. by 1975, since this would give us more than £950 million a year extra for the other things we need much more than this?

Lord Balniel: The criterion of what we should spend on defence depends not so much on what our allies are spending but on what potential adversaries are spending. If the hon. Gentleman is criticising the Government's social priorities, I advise him to study the White Paper on the subject which is being published this afternoon.

Mr. Onslow: Is my hon. Friend aware that although the views expressed by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) may be widely shared on the other side of the Iron Curtain, they are not widely shared in this country? Will he agree that the country generally welcomes and supports the Government's action in bringing forward certain defence expenditure with great assistance to the unemployment areas?

Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend expresses a sentiment held by the vast majority of our people. He also echoes the pleasure at the fact that my Department is able to bring forward expenditure to assist employment in certain areas.

Mr. Allaun: On a point of order. I do not want to delay proceedings, Mr. Speaker, but there was an imputation in the remark of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow). Since the point of view I was expressing has been held by the Pope, the leaders of the Soviet Government, leading American senators and a large number of hon. Members on this side of the House, should not the hon. Gentleman be asked to withdraw his remark?

Mr. George Thomson: The implications of the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) were extremely offensive, irrespective of whether they were in order. On the main point of the supplementary question by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun), is it not a fact that the Government have accepted the view of their predecessors that, broadly, our own defence expenditure should be at levels comparable with those of our European allies? Would it not be worthwhile, as an exercise in European co-operation, for the Government to try to bring this about?

Lord Balniel: If that were the case—and there is a great deal of strength in the point the right hon. Gentleman makes—he should bear in mind that German defence expenditure is already greater than ours and is increasing more rapidly than ours. That is a point which should be borne in mind by his hon. Friends.

Following are the details:—

Percentage of G.N.P. spent on defence—European members of N.A.T.O., 1970.

1970 % of G.N.P.


Belgium
3·1


Denmark
2·8


France
4·7


Greece
5·7


Holland
3·9


Italy
3·0


Luxembourg
0·9


Norway
3·9


Portugal
7·0


Turkey
4·9


United Kingdom
5·7


West Germany
3·7


N.A.T.O. Europe
4·2

R.A.F., Chivenor (Helicopters)

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the withdrawal of helicopters from Royal Air Force, Chivenor.

The Under-Secretary of State for Deference for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Antony Lambton): The helicopter detachment at Royal Air Force, Chivenor, will be transferred to Brawdy when the Tactical Weapons Unit redeploys there from Chivenor in spring,1973.

Mr. Pardoe: As one who had cause to be personally grateful this summer for fixed-wing aircraft and Royal Navy helicopters, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that they can never fully compensate for the loss of R.A.F. helicopters at 15-minute readiness? Is he also aware that up to the end of August this year the Chivenor helicopters were called out no less than 135 times and lifted 87 people, and that unless they are either kept there or replaced by civilian search and rescue operations with helicopters in readiness, hundreds of people's lives will be at risk?

Mr. Lambton: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter but he should understand that my position is to ensure that rescue services are provided for R.A.F. aircraft. The question of whether anything else is provided at Chivenor is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is my hon. Friend aware that the arrival of these helicopters at Brawdy in my constituency will be widely welcomed in Pembrokeshire and the whole of the South and West Wales tourist belt? Does not this question emphasise the need for a national rescue service covering the entire coastal area?

Dr. David Owen: Surely the House will agree that the Ministry of Defence has a social responsibility in these matters, even though the cost may have to be borne by the Department of Trade and Industry. Will not the hon. Gentleman look at this as a Government problem and bring forward proposals for this dangerous coastline, including an adequate helicopter service, which cannot be adequately done from Brawdy?

Mr. Lambton: I repeat that I understand the point and the hon. Gentleman's concern and what my individual responsibility is in this case.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will keep in close touch with the National Search and Rescue Committee on the matter, so that we do not get the absurd situation of Service helicopters and aircraft being moved away with the committee shortly afterwards recommending that they should be replaced?

Mr. Lambton: Certainly, Sir.

Mr. Thorpe: Although R.A.F. Chivenor falls within my constituency, within a wide radius, stretching from South Wales right through Cornwall, there is great appreciation and gratitude to the R.A.F. for the work it does. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many South Wales councils feel that Brawdy would not be an adequate substitute as a rescue service because Chivenor is regarded as being very much more central for the area involved? If it is necessary for a civilian service to be substituted, in the way it has been, on an experimental basis, at R.A.F. Manston—which I visited last Sunday—will the hon. Gentleman undertake that his Department will give all the help and co-operation it can to the Department of Trade and Industry and the Home Office? It seems at the moment that three Departments are pulling in rather different directions.

Mr. Lambton: I quite understand the right hon. Member's concern over this matter and thank him for the gratitude he has expressed to the R.A.F. Certainly we shall take fully into consideration everything that can help in this matter.

R.A.F. Training Aircraft

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for replacing Chipmunk aircraft as the initial training aeroplanes of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: We have decided, subject to satisfactory contractual arrangements, to order Bulldog aircraft to replace the Chipmunk in the University Air Squadrons and certain other rôles.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend will know that we all welcome this, and


I think he will agree that it would be unfortunate if the order for 100 Bulldog aircraft were seen purely as an attempt to alleviate unemployment in Scotland, welcome as that is, and if no account were taken of the outstanding characteristics of this exceptional aircraft.

Mr. Gilmour: My hon. Friend is quite right: it is an outstanding aircraft. We are ordering a good many more than 100, and they will be of real value.

H.M.S. "Ganges"

Rear Admiral Morgan-Giles: asked the Minister of State for Defence what are his plans for the future of H.M.S. "Ganges" at Shotley.

The Under-Secretary for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Peter Kirk): We are still considering the long-term future of the establishment after the school-leaving age is raised.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to discuss with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science the proposal made in the Defence Estimates earlier this year about 15-year old recruitment after the school-leaving age has been raised?

Mr. Kirk: I cannot add anything to the answer on this subject given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Ralph Howell) on 19th November in which he said that he was in consultation with his right hon. Friend.—[Vol. 826, c. 225.]

Mr. Wellbeloved: Does the hon. Gentleman's review of this matter extend to a review of the intolerable practice of sending these boys to naval detention quarters?

Mr. Kirk: That is all under consideration, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

European Economic Community

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will publish a White Paper setting out the increased contribution to European security which Her Majesty's Government intend to make after, and attendant upon, entry into the European Economic Community.

Lord Balniel: Entry into the European Economic Community involves no defence obligations of any sort.

Mr. Moyle: Is it not time that the Government abandoned their insincere and contradictory line? Does not paragraph 44 of the White Paper, "The United Kingdom and the European Communities" give as one reason for seeking membership the fact that European nations should do more in their own defence? Will the Government tell the House how many extra men and how much more money and material they will commit to the defence of Western Europe if we join the Common Market?

Lord Balniel: There is nothing in the Treaty of Rome about defence, and membership of the E.E.C. does not carry any defence obligations. What is true is that the growing military strength of the Warsaw Pact countries and the current trends of the United States both point towards Europe undertaking a greater share of responsibility for her own defence.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that our commitments in Europe fall entirely under the W.E.U. and the N.A.T.O. umbrella? We can perfectly well increase our forces if we have to should the United States decide to withdraw any part of its forces from Europe.

Lord Balniel: My hon. Friend is reinforcing in more detail the point I am making.

H.M.S. "Caledonia"

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether, in view of the deteriorating employment situation, he will now reconsider the policy of closure of H.M.S. "Caledonia" in Fife.

Mr. Kirk: The move of the training task of H.M.S. "Caledonia" to H.M.S. "Sultan" will not take place before 1979–80. It would be premature to judge the effects of the move on the employment situation at this distance in time.

Mr. Hamilton: As this is a long-term policy, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that his mind is not closed on this matter? If, unfortunately, his party should be the Government of the


day at that time, and if the unemployment situation does not improve, will he undertake that the decision will be subject to review, because there are 200 or 300 jobs involved and the men concerned are dubious about their future?

Mr. Kirk: My mind is never closed to anything. This decision dates back to the Administration which the hon. Gentleman supported. As it will not be implemented for nine years, we are getting a little hypothetical.

Personal Files

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: asked the Minister of State for Defence to whom access to the personal files of Servicemen and other personnel is permitted; and whether he will make a statement.

Lord Balniel: Access to personal files is permitted only to authorised persons engaged in personnel management in the Ministry of Defence and, in the case of some civilians, the Civil Service Department, for whom access is necessary to enable them to carry out their official duties.

Mr. Huckfield: Since these files will soon be put on computers, is there a code of conduct covering the computer personnel who will be handling the files? Will the categories of access which the hon. Gentleman has just enunciated include representatives of South African defence and security forces in this country?

Lord Balniel: I think my answer is absolutely clear on access to personal files. The rules of confidentiality imposed in the Ministry of Defence demand that no unauthorised person is given access to personal files. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put down a further Question about a code of conduct, I will try to answer it in more detail.

Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the negotiations with Germany and Italy regarding the letting of contracts for the European multi-r ôle combat aircraft.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: In my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mrs. Fenner) on 19th

November, I gave the position at that time on the selection of avionic equipments for the multi-r ôle combat aircraft. Since then, Elliott Automation Space and Military Systems has also been selected as prime contractor to Panavia for the avionic system integration task, in collaboration with German and Italian firms.
The majority of the selections for general equipment for this aircraft have already been made. The airframe and engine development programmes are proceeding under interim contract arrangements.—[Vol. 826, c. 225.]

Mr. Strang: I welcome the fact that British industry is doing substantially better than was feared a few months ago but does the Minister agree that, in future joint contracts, further measures are required to see that the benefits go more to European than to American technology?

Mr. Gilmour: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his supplementary question. In future contracts we shall take everything into consideration. This particular contract was not made by us.

Mr. Brewis: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that a suitable range exists in the United Kingdom for testing the M.R.C.A., bearing in mind the possible employment opportunities that testing this aircraft and its equipment could bring to Scotland?

Mr. Gilmour: We have that very much under consideration, and we shall certainly bear employment considerations in mind.

Mr. Marten: How many of these aircraft are likely to be sold in total?

Mr. Gilmour: Export considerations are too far ahead. The numbers for Germany, Italy and ourselves are at the same levels as before.

Mrs. Fenner: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will give details of the work share for British firms on the two of the four items of avionics equipment for the multi-r ôle combat aircraft for which British firms are not the prime contractors.

Mr. Ian Gilmour: The precise work-sharing arrangements are in the process of being worked out.

Mrs. Fenner: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern being expressed about the reputed award of a computer contract to an American firm albeit to a German subsidiary? Will he comment on that?

Mr. Gilmour: There is no question of the award being given to an American firm.

Royal Air Force (Command Structure)

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Minister of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future command structure of the Royal Air Force in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Moyle: asked the Minister of State for Defence if he will state his estimate of the number of posts and the number of personnel to be saved as the result of the merging of the Support and Strike Commands of the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Lambton: The detailed arrangements for merging the main elements of Strike and Air Support Commands of the Royal Air Force are now being studied. More details will be given in the Statement on the Defence Estimates of next year.
The future organisation of Training and Maintenance Commands will be the subject of a separate study in 1972.

Mr. Wilkinson: Would my hon. Friend agree that anything that would increase the fighting effectiveness of the Royal Air Force in the United Kingdom would be welcome? Can he give an assurance that the amalgamations which have taken place so far and the downgradings from command to group status have led to reductions in personnel and headquarters units in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lambton: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Moyle: Can the hon. Gentleman be more precise? Is it intended that these amalgamations should lead to financial savings? If not, it will be impossible to adhere to the Government's own principle of holding down defence expenditure to the level at which it stood when my party left office.

Mr. Lambton: There were three main reasons for this decision to merge. The first was to make the best possible use of manpower, the second to make the

United Kingdom command structure of the R.A.F. as compatible as possible with the other two Services and the third to effect economies in support costs. I think that this fully answers the question.

CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF

Mr. Lipton: asked the Prime Minister where and when the names and salaries of the Central Policy Review Staff will be published; and whether, pending such publication, he will circulate these details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): The October issue of "Her Majesty's Ministers and Heads of Public Departments" lists names and grades of senior staff of the Central Policy Review Staff. Fuller information will appear in next year's issue of the Imperial Calendar.

Mr. Lipton: May I thank the Prime Minister for having this Question transferred from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department to himself—a very unusual compliment? Will he consider this proposition? Why should we wait so many months before we know what are the salaries of these gentlemen? If the result following their advice is nearly a million unemployed and rocketing prices, have we anything for which to thank this "think tank"?

The Prime Minister: The important thing is that the C.P.R.S. is being treated in exactly the same way as any other part of the machinery of Government as regards the publication of names, grades and so on; and I do not think it would be possible—at least, I do not think right hon. and hon. Gentlemen would wish this—for the document "Her Majesty's Ministers and Heads of Public Departments" to be further expanded to include everyone in the Civil Service. It is a handy volume at the moment. As the C.P.R.S. is a new aspect of Government and does not appear in the current Imperial Calendar, I am prepared to send the fullest information I can to the hon. Gentleman pending the publication of the Imperial Calendar at the beginning of next year.

Dame Irene Ward: As we are now discussing the police force, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that it would be a good thing to have


a debate on this in view of the reorganisation which is being carried out, to some extent against the wishes of the police force? I would like to get on with the reorganisation.

The Prime Minister: I will always do everything I can to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has noted her request. I would point out that the Central Policy Review Staff is neither responsible for the police nor under its care or custody.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would the right hon. Gentleman think again about what is popularly called the "think tank" because there has been a great deal of speculation in the Press about what the "think tank" is discussing and the advice it is giving to him? This speculation is very unhealthy. Will he think again about regarding this as a special organisation, not part of the Civil Service, and when he does that will he make a statement to the House?

The Prime Minister: The procedure is quite clear, that Ministers receive advice from all branches of Government and it is not customary to make that advice public. That has always been the British tradition and Ministers have a collective responsibility thereafter. It is not possible to have one part of Government treated in a different way from other parts.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES

Mr. Lamond: asked the Prime Minister how many regional development authorities have made representations to him in the period 1st August, 1971 to 31st October, 1971.

The Prime Minister: Two, Sir.

Mr. Lamond: Does the Prime Minister realise that his off-hand and arrogant answers to at least some of these Questions—[Interruption]—are strangely out of tune with the contrite apologetic confessions of failure we had from his colleagues in the Cabinet from the Despatch Box earlier this week? If he agrees with their expressions of misjudgment, will he reopen his correspondence with these development associations

and tell them that he has been moved by the demonstrations which took place outside the House this week to review this policy and to accept the policies being put forward by the development associations?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman asked me how many development authorities had made representations to me and I gave him the answer two. That is a matter of fact. There is nothing off-hand or arrogant about it. It just proves that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to have information but wishes merely to make a political point.

Mr. Redmond: Did the regional development authorities in their representations to my right hon. Friend give him any information on what is being done by the local authority industrial development officers, and have they told him where these exist and how successful they have been?

The Prime Minister: This has been mentioned in the course of discussions, and the authorities, one in the North-East and one in the North-West, both of which I have met, in addition to submitting memoranda to me, put forward a number of policy points, all of which are being pursued. I shall be in contact with them again about the matters they have raised.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Prime Minister aware that the advantages held by the development areas have been steadily eroded? So that this process may be reversed will he consult, because it is vital to encourage industry to go to these areas?

The Prime Minister: I do not entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's first statement. Policy on these areas has been changed, but if one takes full account of all measures including the infrastructure that is now going into the development areas, their advantage has not been reduced. There has been a conflict of interest in the representations I have received. The deputation I received from the North-East asked that the I.D.C. policy should be most rigorously enforced, but when I saw the North-West Development Authority its representatives asked that I.D.C. policy should immediately be completely changed to allow free development in their region.

NORWAY

Mr. Kauffman: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to make an early official visit to Norway.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Kaufman: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the Norwegian Prime Minister, will he say that the present Government, instead of continuing tamely to accept the common agricultural policy of the E.E.C., will join with the Norwegian Government in the stand made by their Minister of Agriculture in Brussels in rejecting the C.A.P. and demanding lasting exemptions from it?

The Prime Minister: The British negotiations have been completed in Brussels, with the major exceptions of fisheries and one or two minor issues. The Norwegian Government are carrying on their own negotiations and have always accepted responsibility for them, as has every other Member of E.F.T.A. We have kept in the closest possible touch with them and the E.F.T.A. Governments have expressed their appreciation. It is not for us to advise the Norwegian Government on how to deal with their own individual aspects of the negotiations.

GOOLE

Dr. Marshall: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Borough of Goole.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Dr. Marshall: If the Prime Minister ever comes to Goole, will he come by water to emphasise the fact that Goole is a port and badly needs new trade to compensate for the sharply declining tonnage handled by the port during the last year?

The Prime Minister: I know Goole as a port, and I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said.

SEARCH AND RESCUE (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)

Mr. Pardoe: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments responsible for search and rescue matters; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. There is close and continuing consultation between all Departments concerned with search and rescue matters.

Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that already this afternoon the House has heard that the Ministry of Defence is not prepared to accept responsibility for maintaining a military search and rescue helicopter service, other than for strictly military purposes? Is he also aware that some time ago the Board of Trade recommended in a report that civilian funds should be made available for such a service where military purposes no longer exist? Could he not bring these two Departments together to ensure that where military purposes no longer exist, civilian funds will be made available?

The Prime Minister: As I have said, there is close consultation between Departments on this matter, and it is something of which I have had personal experience. The position is that where the Ministry of Defence is providing a military service because it is justified by military requirements, it provides at the same time a civilian service which is invaluable to the people in that area. When the Ministry of Defence needs to reduce the military service because it is not justified on a military basis, the Department of Trade and Industry considers the matter and, as in the case of Manston and Aberdeen, has accepted responsibility. I understand that the change at Chivenor does not take place until 1973, so that there is time between now and the removal of the Royal Air Force helicopters properly to consider special requirements and to make the necessary arrangements.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the Prime Minister, both in his official capacity and as a yachtsman, make sure that the Royal National Lifeboat Institution as an independent body is brought


into all departmental discussions concerning search and rescue operations at sea?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and that is already the practice. It is not only the R.N.L.I. that is involved, but also Trinity House and the coastguards.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave a most courteous and sympathetic hearing to a deputation which I led on Monday to raise this matter? Is he also aware of the civilian experiment at Manston, and will he bear in mind that at present air-sea rescue by helicopter depends upon whether one has the good fortune to have a Service station in the area? Since many of these stations are under review and closure plans have been announced for R.A.F. Chivenor, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a strong case for an interdepartmental or independent inquiry to see what civilian organisation could be set up to deal with that sort of situation?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. As I have said, in the two major cases to which I have referred, Manston and Aberdeen, where the R.A.F. service has been withdrawn, a civilian service has been arranged. I am prepared to examine whether we now need some broader-based permanent civilian organisation which can then gradually expand to take over the responsibilities which are being relinquished by the Royal Air Force. This does not alter the fact that the Department of Trade and Industry is giving urgent consideration to cases of which it is aware such as Chivenor.

MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will recommend the establishment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the educational, social and physical needs of mentally handicapped children.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I believe that the services required to meet the needs of these children can be developed without appointing a Royal Commission.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is con-

siderable concern about the scale and nature of the problem and that we are dealing with a subject which is either neglected or which local authorities are prepared to sweep under the carpet? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to reconsider this matter since it would appear that the only machinery which could extract the necessary information on a national basis would be a Royal Commission.

The Prime Minister: I am quite prepared to consider that matter but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, knowing that a Royal Commission usually takes a considerable time to consider matters and make recommendations, thought it best to use the Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children as a means of getting such information as the hon. Gentleman suggests and also advice on action which should be taken to deal with the problem. If the hon. Gentleman has particular indications of where action should be taken in this respect, we shall gladly consider them.

Sir D. Renton: Might we not achieve quicker progress by waiting for the completion of the first year of responsibility of the Department of Education and Science and then taking stock of the position, rather than that we should wait for a Royal Commission?

The Prime Minister: This is one of the factors we have taken into account in deciding immediately to use the advisory committee and to take action on this matter. If we were to use a Royal Commission, we would have to wait a considerable time.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is one special category of children—sometimes wrongly lumped with all mentally handicapped children—for whom far too little is done in the way of research, accommodation or training, namely, autistic children?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I am aware of this particular problem and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it requires very clear consideration.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many mentally handicapped children find it difficult to get into hospital for other diseases? Although we are not to have a Royal Commission


on this matter, is it not important to look into this problem at this moment?

The Prime Minister: I am prepared to ask my right hon. Friend to inquire into that particular matter straight away.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the Prime Minister satisfied—I am certain that he cannot be—that the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act affecting autistic children and other children suffering from childhood psychoses, as well as dyslectic children, are being treated with sufficient urgency by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend sent a circular to local education authorities in June. The replies to that circular have been received and they are now being collated. It is on the basis of those replies, the scale of the problem and what is being done to deal with it and, therefore, what more is required, that we can consider action.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: A point of order. Mr. George Cunningham.

Mr. George Cunningham: You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that on Question No. 20 to the Minister of State for Defence, you cut off supplementary questions at an unusually early stage after I had put a very lengthy supplementary question. No doubt you did so for that reason. However, the length of my supplementary question was due to the fact that I chose to preface it with what I considered to be a necessary tribute to the courage of our troops in Northern Ireland. I suggest that it is important, especially when Ministers appear to be sweeping under the carpet the legal implications of action, that this House should not appear to be doing the same. In those circumstances, I feel that you might have allowed supplementary questions to run for a longer period.

Mr. Speaker: That is not really a point of order at all. The hon. Gentleman has given notice already that he intends to raise the matter on the Adjournment. It must rest there.
In regard to what is to happen now, I understand that the Secretary of State

for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs is to make a statement. Following that, the Leader of the House will make a statement. Then there will be the Ballot for Notices of Motions for Monday, 13th December, following which I shall rule on the point of privilege raised yesterday. After that, I shall rule on subsequent points of order, of at least one of which I have been given notice.

RHODESIA

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement about my recent visit to Rhodesia.
Following my statement on 9th November, I have been in Salisbury and have held talks with Mr. Smith. I had the opportunity also to meet many Rhodesians of all races and opinions, including a number of detainees and ex-detainees. As the House will be aware, Mr. Smith and I have signed a document setting out certain proposals for a settlement which are fully within the five principles to which the Government have constantly adhered. These proposals will now be put before the people of Rhodesia as a whole in a test of acceptability, according to principle five. For this result I am greatly indebted to the Lord Goodman and to the team of negotiators, who have worked so hard and made my visit possible.
The proposals have the following main features. First, amendments will be introduced into the present constitution of Rhodesia to remove the provisison which precludes any possibility of progress beyond parity of representation in the House of Assembly between Europeans and Africans. This will be replaced by arrangements providing for unimpeded progress to majority rule. The present number of lower African roll voters will be increased by a reduction of the franchise qualifications.
Secondly, in order to proceed to this end, changes in the present franchise conditions will be made and the present income tax regulator abolished. The present number of directly and indirectly elected Africans in Parliament will continue but there will be created a new


higher African roll with the same qualifications as the European roll. New African seats will be added as the proportion of voters on the higher African roll increases in relation to the numbers of voters on the European roll. On the present estimates, it seems likely that four new African seats will be due to be created when the procedures for registration are completed and in that case they will be filled by by-elections in advance of a general election. These new seats will be filled, the first two by direct election by the higher African roll, and the next two by indirect election on the same lines as the present indirectly elected members, until parity is achieved.
At parity, 10 new seats will be created and filled through election on a common roll consisting of the European and higher African rolls. At that stage, the numbers on each roll would be approximately equal. Throughout this period up to parity, the blocking mechanism for the specially entrenched clauses of the Constitution will be two-thirds of the Assembly and the Senate voting separately plus majorities of the European and African members of the Lower House, again voting separately.
At the parity stage when there are 50 African members of the House of Assembly, a referendum will be held amongst voters on both African rolls to determine whether all the African members should in future be directly-elected.
Following that referendum and any consequential elections, the 10 common roll seats will be filled, unless the Assembly determines, on the recommendation of a commission to be set up at that stage, that some more acceptable alternative arrangements should be made. Any such decision, however, would be subject to the blocking mechanism I have described. Thereafter the blocking mechanism will revert to a simple two-thirds majority. This would mean that at least 17 African members of the Lower House would have to approve any change to the specially entrenched clauses, and at that stage the Africans would be represented by directly elected members if that had been their choice. So much for the constitutional arrangements.
The proposals also involve other important changes designed to reduce discrimination and to promote racial

harmony. There will be a Declaration of Rights that will be justiciable in the courts. This is a major advance on the present constitution. In particular, on discrimination, the Declaration will reenact the safeguard relating to discrimination contained in Section 67(4) of the 1961 Constitution.
Secondly, there will be a three man commission, whose membership, to be agreed with us, will include an African, the task of which will be to review the question of racial discrimination throughout the whole field, but with particular regard to the Land Tenure Act and to certain of its effects. Mr. Smith has put it clearly on record in the proposals that it is his Administration's intention to reduce racial discrimination and that he will commend to his Parliament legislation to give effect to the commission's recommendations, except where there are considerations which any Government would regard as overriding—

Mr. Faulds: This is shameful. It is an absolute betrayal, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that the House will wish to hear the whole of my statement.
Thirdly, there will be no further evictions of established communities from Epworth or other areas, until the recommendations of the commission have been considered.

Mr. Kaufman: Until? This is monstrous.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Fourthly, further land is now available for African settlement and, as the need arises, more will be allocated. Fifthly, when sanctions have been lifted, the State of Emergency will be revoked, unless unforeseen circumstances intervene.
Fifty-four detainees out of 116 have been released or will be shortly. For the remainder, there will be a special review, at which a British observer will be present. Rhodesians living abroad will be free to return save only where criminal charges lie against them. The Rhodesian Government have undertaken to encourage African recruitment to the public service. As a further important part of the settlement, the British Government


will provide £50 million in aid over 10 years for economic and educational development in African areas, such aid to be matched appropriately by the Rhodesians with money additional to their present planned expenditure.
Finally, the whole complex of these proposals is to be submitted to the Rhodesian people for approval. This test will be conducted by a Commission appointed by Her Majesty's Government, of which Lord Pearce, a former Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, has agreed to be Chairman, and will report to Her Majesty's Government. The Rhodesian authorities have agreed to allow a full and fair test, and to permit normal political activity to the Commission's satisfaction. Thereafter, if the proposals are acceptable to the Rhodesian Parliament it will be asked to enact the necessary legislation to give effect to them; and the Government will ask this House, once they are satisfied on that score, to enact the amended constitution and to give independence to Rhodesia. This will clear the way for the lifting of sanctions.
Hon. Members will wish to study these proposals in detail. I am publishing the text in a White Paper which I hope will be available tomorrow at 2 o'clock. Meanwhile I am arranging to make available in the Vote Office today, in advance of the White Paper, the text of the "Proposals for a Settlement" which Mr. Smith and I signed yesterday. This—with the addition of its most important Appendix III containing the full text of the revised Declaration of Rights—will of course form part of the full White Paper. The House will also want to debate the issue; for their part the Government will be ready to make time available. I will therefore confine myself to saying that I believe these proposals are fair and honourable; and that they provide an opportunity to set a new course in Rhodesia, which can lead to the greater harmony of all races there and to the partnership and prosperity of all Rhodesians.
This is a complicated matter, and I have kept the House already too long. Hon. Members will wish to study the documents and to make up their own minds. I would only ask them to do so fairly, considering past history and the present realities of power. Whatever hon.

Members may feel about the proposals now put forward I believe that they will agree that the Rhodesian people should certainly be given the chance to judge these for themselves. And let us be in no doubt that the price that will be paid if we fail in this attempt, will be paid not by us but by others.

Mr. Healey: The Foreign Secretary has just made a statement of immense importance and the House will want to consider it in detail, particularly the parliamentary mathematics, which I would have defied any uninstructed person to follow as the statement was read. I hope that the Foreign Secretary, or the Leader of the House, will confirm that we shall have a debate on this matter next week, and we for our part look forward to it.
Anyone who listened to the Foreign Secretary will recognise that the Smith régime appears to have made some movement in some areas, and we shall want to consider those areas very carefully. The fact that it has done so testifies to the effectiveness of sanctions, as Mr. Smith admitted in his last address to the Rhodesian Front Assembly.
The real test to which this House and the world will submit the agreement is whether the five principles are, in fact, likely to be fulfilled if the agreement is implemented; whether it will, indeed, be acceptable to the Rhodesian people as a whole; and, most important, whether there will be effective protection against violation of the agreement once sanctions have been removed.
So far as one could follow the right hon. Gentleman's statement, there is no safeguard against legislation to annul the agreement, outside the Rhodesian Parliament itself. The agreement imposes no obligation from any external authority—British, Commonwealth or international—on the Rhodesian Government to carry out whatever policies they make. If the Parliament of the United Kingdom were to accept the agreement it would be accepting new moral and political obligations for what happened in Rhodesia for the whole period before majority rule was finally accepted, and the acceptance of these new obligations by the British Government and people could have far-reaching consequences for our influence


and our material interests throughout the world.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will try to answer some of the questions that I put to him about his statement, because he must know, as we all do, that only three days ago 102 members of the United Nations General Assembly voted for no independence before majority African rule, and if they are to acquiesce in this agreement they must be satisfied that majority rule is to be achieved within a reasonable space of time.
Perhaps I may first ask the right hon. Gentleman questions on four of the principles. Is he satisfied that the Rhodesian representatives with whom he spoke understand majority rule in the same sense as we in this House would? The House will know that when he was questioned yesterday about the time when majority rule would be achieved, Mr. Smith answered, "We already have responsible majority rule in this country." If that is the spirit in which he approaches the implementation of the agreement, no Member in this House, and no rational person, could regard the agreement as being meaningful. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman what is the best estimate that he can make of the period before parity is achieved. Second, how long will it take from the achievement of parity to genuine majority rule in Rhodesia?
On the question of safeguards, will Her Majesty's Government retain any material sanctions against the violation of the agreement until it has largely been implemented?
On the Rhodesian parliamentary safeguard to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, will the African element in the blocking mechanism consists solely of elected African members, or will it include the chiefs? Those are matters of immense importance if this House and the world are to have any confidence whatever in the Parliamentary elements in the blocking mechanism.
I think that the House will be most disappointed at the Foreign Secretary's frank admission that the Land Tenure Act, and all the other discriminatory legislation in Rhodesia, is to stay until and unless a committee composed exclusively of Rhodesians—subject, I agree, to their composition being approved by

the British Government—has recommended changes, and even then, as I understand it from the right hon. Gentleman's statement, the Smith régime reserves the right to reject those recommendations where there are considerations "which any Government would regarding as overriding". I think that the House will want more precision on what sort of considerations the Foreign Secretary had in mind when he agreed to that phrase.
I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the test of acceptability is of special importance in the agreement as a whole and will be regarded as of critical importance by the United Nations and by world opinion. How long a period does the right hon. Gentleman envisage for the test of acceptability to be carried out? Will it be weeks, or months? I sincerely hope the latter. Second, during the period of consultation will there be freedom of political activity in the tribal as well as in the urban areas? There is no freedom of political activity in the tribal areas at present. Third, will the apparatus of the police state be lifted during the period of consultation? Unless it is so lifted, consultation will be a mockery.
Finally, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about the size and composition of the Commission which is to carry out the test of acceptability? Will it include respected Commonwealth figures like, for example, Mr. Lester Pearson of Canada? There is one last point which I must put—

Mr. Gorst: On a point of order.

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Mr. Gorst: Is it in order—[Interruption.]—for the right hon. Gentleman to ask so many question that my right hon. Friend will be unable to recall what they were?

Mr. Speaker: That is certainly not a point of order. If there is any matter of order, I will make my own decision upon it. If questions and answers were listened to more quietly by both sides of the House, we might get on more quickly.

Mr. Healey: I just want to ask this final question of the Foreign Secretary. He referred to the removal of sanctions.


Is it not the case that this country is imposing sanctions on Rhodesia in pursuance of a mandatory resolution of the United Nations Security Council, which can be changed or removed only by the unanimous agreement of the members of the Security Council? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to this House that he has not made any private bargain with the Smith régime to violate a mandatory resolution of the Security Council as part of his agreement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I must not test the patience of the House too far—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that he will at least study these matters objectively. I will try to answer his questions.
So far as the time at which we might reach parity and thereafter go to majority rule is concerned, I must give the answer which his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition gave at the time of "Fearless", when he said,
… the time required cannot be measured by clock or calendar, but only by achievement.
There are too many uncertain factors. There is the question of how many Africans will register, there is the question of the economic pace and industrial expansion of Rhodesia, and all these are relevant.
After parity, the right hon. Gentleman asked, how long will it take for the African majority to take charge? It could happen in the first election, I would guess that it would be certain to happen in the second election after parity and thereafter with absolute certainty.
On the question of material sanctions, there can be no effective external guarantee if force is ruled out. On his fourth question, the blocking mechanism will consist of all African members of the Lower House; it will be all Africans and no chiefs.
As for the Land Tenure Act, this, as the right hon. Gentleman will see, will be examined, and the hope is that it will be amended in certain very important respects—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I think that hon. Members must recognise one thing—all the way through the history of Rhodesia, when we were responsible, there was a Land Apportionment

Act essentially for this reason. If no land was reserved for the Africans, the Europeans would buy the lot. We must recognise that, and be sensible about it—

Mr. Robert Hughes: That is quite different.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The test of acceptability will be as short as possible, but it must be thorough and it will so be undertaken. Freedom of political activity will be granted. So far as the United Nations is concerned and the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that I might have made a private deal with Mr. Smith—I dismiss that.

Mr. Sandys: While warmly congratulating my right hon. Friend on securing agreement to constitutional changes which go incomparably further than almost anyone thought possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—is not the choice now clear—either to accept the very significant progress which this agreement offers or to destroy all prospect of African political advance except by bloody revolution? Can there be any doubt which of those two courses is in the best interests of the people of Rhodesia of all races?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I thank my right hon. Friend. It might be worth just repeating, in response to him, what goes in relation to the present position. The income tax regulator goes. The express bar to progress beyond parity goes. The ability of the Europeans to amend the Constitution at will goes. Any further discrimination by new legislation or new subordinate legislation is impossible from the time of this agreement. It therefore sets a new direction for the country.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the whole world would welcome a settlement the terms of which are honourable, the details of which give guarantees of durability, and that it is by this test that we shall examine these matters in detail? May I ask him, first, since only 54 of the 116 detainees are to be released, albeit with a subsequent British observer, whether he gathered from Mr. Smith that it was his intention that the natural leaders of African opinion, like Mr. Joshua Nkomo, who has been detained without trial for more than six years in prison—people of this


calibre—would be released? Is he aware that it is vitally essential that this process of consultation should not be seen to be rushed as part of a blitzkrieg by the Rhodesian Government?
Second, turning to the credibility of the settlement, the Foreign Secretary said on page 4 of his statement that Mr. Smith gave an assurance that there would be no further evictions of established communities, from Epworth or other areas, until the recommendations of the Commission had been considered. Did he gather from that that the policy of residential apartheid was one that Mr. Smith still felt was a necessary weapon in the armoury of Government?
Finally, with regard to the Commission itself, while I personally have the very highest regard and respect for Lord Pearce, would the Foreign Secretary agree that it is very important that he should be supplemented by people of political experience who have spent their lives in politics, evaluating, making political judgments, and that they should if possible be drawn from the Commonwealth—from the white Commonwealth and from the black Commonwealth—and that only a commission of that sort could produce a result which would be credible all over the world?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: On the tribunal looking into the detainees, as the right hon. Gentleman said, 54 are to be released and the others examined. I myself saw Mr. Nkomo and had a long conversation with him. Whether he would be in the numbers to be released or the numbers to be considered, I cannot say—

Mr. Faulds: Why not?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the hon. Gentleman could control himself for a little, what I can say is that, of course, he will be able to be seen by the Commission.

Mr. Robert Hughes: After the test of acceptability.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As to the evictions, about which the right hon. Gentleman asked—

Mr. Faulds: Give him an umbrella.

Sir F. Bennett: Give him a banana.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: —eviction from the Epworth area, which seemed to be imminent, is now to be postponed till after the Commission. I would hope that Mr. Smith would accept a recommendation from the Commission on this place. I will not say what my forecast is, but I should hope that there is a good chance that this will not take place at all.
Next the composition of the Commission to carry out the test of acceptability. The answer is yes, we shall have to put on it people of political experience. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that this is a British responsibility laid upon up by the United Nations, so we must carry it out.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: May I add my warmest congratulations to my right hon. Friend on the great achievement which he has made in these negotiations and ask him to make it clear that the proposals in the White Paper must be approved by the Rhodesian Parliament?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The proposals in the White Paper must be approved by the Rhodesian Parliament. Mr. Smith will have to carry the legislation to amend the Constitution through the Rhodesian Parliament. It is not until that process is over, of course, that this Parliament has to do anything at all.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary aware that many Rhodesian Europeans feel that unless there is repeal of the 1969 Constitution there can be no settlement fair to all races? If any Rhodesian Europeans elect to have British rather than Rhodesian passports, will their wishes be met?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I did not meet anybody in Rhodesia, African or European, who suggested the repeal of the 1969 Constitution. They said that they thought that the 1969 Constitution inevitably had to be the basis for a settlement, but that it should be drastically amended. I should like to look into the question of British passports.

Mr. Braine: Whatever immediate view might be taken of the agreement which my right hon. Friend has brought back, surely we can all agree that he has removed a log jam and has enabled a fresh


look to be taken at what was seemingly an intractable situation? Is my right hon. Friend able to give the House any indication how the Commission, in applying the test of acceptability, will ascertain the views of the various communities in Rhodesia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I should impress on the House that I am asking it to do no more than accept that this arrangement must be put to the Rhodesian people. It is an alternative which they must be given a chance to accept or reject. Concerning the putting of the proposals to the Rhodesian people, the Commission will be given a completely free hand as to how it wishes to conduct this operation.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that I expected many of these proposals to be made in a settlement reached between himself and Mr. Smith and that it fills me with deep shame that this country should be willing to sell out the interests of 5 million Africans in this way? My shame may be mitigated if the test of acceptability is to be a real, not a sham, test. For that purpose there must be a long period of consultation there must be adequate political leadership in the formation of public opinion in Rhodesia, and the members of the Commission who will make the test of acceptability must be able to evaluate the kind of influences which will be brought to bear upon them in an African situation.
Despite my great respect for Lord Pearce, I doubt whether he alone would be capable of doing that. I therefore ask that the other members of the Commission, both white and black, as I hope, should be distinguished and dispassionate figures in world politics. Mr. Lestor Pearson seems an eminently desirable figure and possibly Mr. Robert Gardiner would be the legal representative.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: First, Lord Pearce will not be alone. He will have very distinguished colleagues with him. If the hon. Gentleman anticipated the kind of proposals which I have made and just now put before the House, then he is cleverer than a great many people.

Mr. Longden: Would it not have been more generous if the principal spokesman

for the Opposition had let fall one word of congratulation to my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]—and also to Lord Goodman and his team—for bringing off something which I for one did not believe he would do?
Supposing that for one moment some members of the United Nations and some hon. Members opposite were to take the, to them, bizarre view that the principal object of the exercise is to ensure the future happiness and prosperity of our 5 million African fellow subjects in Rhodesia, would they not be bound to consider that the agreement which my right hon. Friend has brought back is infinitely preferable to the immediate lapse into apartheid which would have been the inevitable result of no agreement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My hon. Friend has put his finger on a point of which the House should be very conscious. For eight or nine years now the line has been hardening between the races in Rhodesia in a way which is intensely worrying many moderate Europeans and many moderate Africans. Therefore, I come back to what I said before. This is a chance of setting the Rhodesian Constitution and the protection of the individual Rhodesian on a new course. I think that the African will benefit more from this than anybody else.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Foreign Secretary tell us why he did not insist on seeing the Reverend Sithole, why his meeting with Mr. Nkomo was so short, and why he was not accompanied by advisers? Will he also tell the House why he did not insist on these leaders being released when those detainees who are not released immediately can only be discussed by the Commission after the test of acceptability? Why should not the release of detainees take place before the test of acceptability? There can be no free political discussion whilst these leaders are kept in detention.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The important thing to achieve was that the Commission should see everybody. Mr. Smith has released a good number of detainees. I hope that many more will be released.
My meeting with Mr. Nkomo went on for about an hour and a half, and we had a very full discussion.
The hon. Gentleman asked why I did not see the Reverend Sithole. The Reverend Sithole sent me a memorandum which was published in the Press before I had a chance to read it. I therefore asked to see the Reverend Sithole's right hand man, Mr. Mwabe, who came to see me. I had a talk with him for about an hour and a half in which he told me exactly what the Reverend Sithole felt.

Sir F. Bennett: On the optimistic assumption that the whole House wants to make an objective analysis of these proposals, will my right hon. Friend remind us of the prospects of African advancement in the proposals which he has put before the House compared with those which the former Prime Minister was prepared to put forward at the time of "Fearless" and "Tiger"?
Regarding what this Government might or might not do after independence, will my right hon. Friend remind us of any Constitution of a former Commonwealth country which has achieved independence which enables us, after independence, to take steps to restore a previous capacity to intervene?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is difficult to make comparisons. Between "Tiger" and "Fearless" the situation got worse. Between "Fearless" and now the situation got worse. We have to start from a different baseline from the Leader of the Opposition.
A great many independence Constitutions have been altered within a few months or a few years of our laying down the conditions which we thought would be accepted. I simply point out to the House that Mr. Smith has to put these proposals through his Parliament. It is not until then that we in this House have to act.

Mr. James Johnson: In view of the black history of South Africa and all other settler communities in Africa, does the Foreign Secretary really expect white oligarchies to hand over power to the African masses? It has happened nowhere else. None of us who has been to Africa expects this to happen unless it is a genuine Christian community, which is not so. Why does he not demand external safeguards for the future of these black African masses?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I know what an interest the hon. Gentleman takes in all these matters, but, with great respect, he has to make up his mind whether he wants Rhodesia in the next few years to go irrevocably to the apartheid system and to be indistinguishable from South Africa, or to give Rhodesians a chance to take a new course.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must try to protect the other business of the House. I cannot allow questions on this matter to go on indefinitely.

Mr. Lane: On the forthcoming test of acceptability in Rhodesia, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Commission will be free to see anyone it wishes without restriction?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir; that is my understanding.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Further to the test of acceptability, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us a bit more about who will be Lord Pearce's colleagues and, in particular, from what nationalities and categories of people they will be drawn? Does his reply to the Leader of the Liberal Party imply that they will all be British subjects? Secondly, is it understood that if the test of acceptability is not passed this agreement has no validity and that it will still be the duty of this country, with the help of the United Nations, to endeavour by sanctions or other means to restore the rule of law in Rhodesia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the test of acceptability proves that the Rhodesians do not want this arrangement and this constitution, we revert to the position we were in before. I am bound to say that the United Nations has not been a great comfort. I do not want to say any more now about the additional membership, but I shall tell the House as soon as I can who the additional members will be.

Mr. Tapsell: Will my right hon. Friend accept from one who, I think, can claim to have been as deeply concerned as any other hon. Member to safeguard the interests of the Africans in Rhodesia that, at first hearing, the terms which he has been able to negotiate appear to be a most remarkable


achievement and seem to have gone a great deal further towards bridging the gap than I for one would have thought possible? May I ask him whether, before he initialled the document, Mr. Smith had an opportunity to discuss it with his senior colleagues and whether he had their support?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Mr. Smith had all his colleagues there yesterday and had discussed these matters throughout with his Cabinet colleagues. I cannot say what the results of those discussions were.

Mr. Michael Foot: As so much may turn on the conditions of free discussion which may prevail in Rhodesia during the period of testing the acceptability of the proposals, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he asked or insisted that Mr. Nkomo should be released to discuss with his friends and colleagues in the country what he felt about this settlement, and will he tell us precisely what the answer was?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman has asked a question about Mr. Nkomo. I did not insist that Mr. Nkomo should be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Perhaps the Opposition will allow me to answer the question. What I did ask was that all those who wished to see and express their views to the Commission should do so, and Mr. Nkomo can do so.

Mr. Healey: I must press the right hon. Gentleman on this point. In his statement he said that normal political activity would be permitted, and I asked him whether that meant that the apparatus of the police state would be removed. The right hon. Gentleman gave no reply. May I tell him frankly that no one on this side of the House will treat the test of acceptability as in any sense serious or committing unless there is freedom of African political activity for all those other than those interned on criminal charges.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would not be so impetuous. He is becoming more and more gullible every day and makes the most extraordinary statements. If he had listened to what I said, and thereafter reads the White Paper, he would know

that normal political facilities, including broadcasting, will be allowed to the political parties in Rhodesia. It is for the Commission to make the conditions it wants to satisfy itself that it will be able to conduct the test of acceptability in the right way.

Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the words he uttered and which are recorded in his statement, that political broadcasting facilities will be permitted only to parties already represented in the Rhodesian Parliament. Mr. Nkomo's party is not represented in the Parliament. This is one of the aspects of the police state. Will the right hon. Gentleman, whose record of gullibility in 1938 is still in our minds, answer the question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now clearly getting into the realms of debate.

Mr. Faulds: On a point of order. On a matter as important as this, and on such a shameful day for the Foreign Secretary and for the British House of Commons, may I respectfully suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have not had sufficient time for questions, particularly since some of us who were born in Africa, and who know a bloody sight more about the matter than the right hon. Gentleman, have not been called to ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wish that I did not receive quite so much assistance. I have to decide these matters, and I have some knowledge of what the business statement will be.

Following is the text:

ANNEX B

RHODESIA: PROPOSALS FOR A SETTLEMENT

1. The test of acceptability

The proposals set out below are conditional upon the British Government being satisfied that they are acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. The British Government will therefore appoint a Commission to ascertain directly from all sections of the population of Rhodesia whether or not these proposals are acceptable and to report accordingly to the British Government. It will consist of a Chairman, Deputy Chairmen and a number of Commissioners. The report will be signed by the Chairman and the Deputy Chairmen. The members of the Commission will travel extensively throughout the country visiting in particular all centres of population, local councils and traditional meeting places in the Tribal Trust Lands.

In the period before and during the test of acceptability normal political activities will be permitted to the satisfaction of the Commission, provided they are conducted in a peaceful and democratic manner. Radio and television time will be made available to political parties represented in the House of Assembly.

The Commission will carry out its inquiries in public or in private as it deems appropriate. There will be immunity for witnesses heard by the Commission in respect of their evidence and freedom for persons resident in Rhodesia, whatever their political views or affiliations, to enable them to appear before the Commission. All Rhodesian Government employees will be permitted to express their views to the Commission. Persons in detention or under restriction will be similarly permitted. Arrangements will be made in London and elsewhere as necessary for Rhodesians resident abroad to submit their views to the Commission.

The Rhodesian Government will provide the Commission with such assistance as may reasonably be required to enable them to carry out their functions.

II. The Constitution

The Constitution of Rhodesia will be the Constitution adopted in Rhodesia in 1969 modified in the following respects. The Rhodesian Government will introduce legislation to make the necessary modifications in the Constitution and related electoral legislation with effect from the date on which independence is conferred by the British Parliament.

(1) The House of Assembly

(a) The existing provisions governing the increase of African representation in the House will be repealed and replaced by provisions to give effect to the arrangements set out in the following sub-paragraphs.
(b) A new roll of African voters (the African higher roll) will be created with the same qualifications as those for the roll of European voters. The relevant means and educational qualifications are set out in Appendix I.
(c) Additional African seats will be created, in accordance with the arrangements set out in the following subparagraphs, with effect from the dissolution of Parliament following the date on which it is established that any such seats are due. The seats will be filled at the general election consequent upon the dissolution of Parliament. However, the first four additional seats will be created and elections held to fill them as soon as it is established that they are due.
(d) When the number of voters registered on the African higher roll equals 6 per cent. of the number of voters then registered on the European roll, two additional African seats will become due; when the number of voters registered on the African higher roll equals 12 per cent. of the number of voters then registered on the European roll, a further two additional African seats will become due; further additional African seats will become due two at a time, for each such proportionate increase of 6 per cent. in the number of voters registered on the African higher roll, until 34 additional African seats have been

created, thus resulting in parity in the numbers of African and European members in the House of Assembly. This arrangement will ensure that at parity there are approximately equal numbers of voters on the African higher and European rolls.
(e) The first two additional African seats will be filled by direct election for single-member constituencies by the voters registered on the African higher roll and the next two will be filled by indirect election by electoral colleges on the same basis as the existing eight African seats filled by indirect election. This sequence will be repeated in relation to subsequent additional African seats.
(f) For the purpose of giving effect to the above arrangement the Registrar-General of Voters will review the number registered on the African higher roll and European roll at not more than six-monthly intervals, and whenever additional African seats have become due he will issue a certificate to that effect to the President and the President will then be required to make an order providing for the creation of those seats as described above.
(g) The qualifications for the existing roll of African voters (the African lower roll) will be replaced by qualifications equivalent to those for the "B" roll under the 1961 Constitution subject to the financial qualifications being increased twice by 10 per cent. The relevant means and educational qualifications are set out in Appendix II.
(h) The Rhodesian Government have agreed to a simplified application form for enrolment on the African lower roll, and to an amendment to the Electoral Act to provide that an applicant for the African lower roll shall, if he so requests, receive assistance from the registering officer in completing the form.
(i) A candidate for election to an African higher roll seat will have to be registered as a voter on that roll, and a candidate for election to an African lower roll seat will have to be registered as a voter on one of the two African rolls.
(j) Within one year after the holding of the general election at which parity is attained a referendum will be held among all enrolled African voters to determine whether or not the seats filled by indirect election should be abolished and replaced by an equal number of seats filled by direct election.

The new seats will all be African higher roll seats unless the Legislature has before the referendum provided for up to one-quarter of the new seats to be African lower roll seats. The Legislature may also provide that a specific number of the extra seats should be rural constituencies.

Laws providing for any of the matters mentioned in this paragraph, including the procedural arrangements for the holding of the referendum, would not have to be passed in accordance with the requirements for amending the Constitution; the only special requirement would be that in the House of Assembly they must be approved by a majority of all the African members.

If the majority of voters at the referendum is in favour of the abolition of the indirectly


elected seats, an election to give effect to the change will be held within one year thereafter. It will be possible for an election to be held for this purpose without the dissolution of Parliament. If this course is adopted the indirectly elected African members and the African higher roll members and also, if the number of African lower roll seats is to be increased, the African lower roll members, will vacate their seats on the date appointed for the nomination of candidates in the election and Parliament will be prorogued from that date until the completion of the election.

(k) Not later than six months after the holding of that election or, if the result of the referendum is that the seats filled by indirect election are retained, after the completion of the referendum, an independent Commission will be appointed to ascertain whether the creation of Common Roll seats in accordance with the constitutional provisions described in subparagraph (l) below is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia and, if this is not so acceptable, whether any alternative arrangements would command general support. The commission will consist of a Chairman who holds or has held high judicial office, and equal numbers of European and African members appointed by the Government after consultation with all parties represented in the House of Assembly. The Commission will be required to report to the Legislature within one year of its appointment. A law to give effect to any recommendation of the Commission would have to be passed in accordance with the requirements for the amendment of the Constitution.

(l) The Constitution will provide that, with effect from the dissolution of Parliament following the date by which the Commission is required to report, 10 Common Roll seats in the House of Assembly will be created. The Common Roll seats will be filled by direct election by the voters on a roll consisting of all the voters for the time being registered on the European roll and the African higher roll. Elections to these seats will be conducted on the basis that the whole of Rhodesia will form a single constituency returning all the Common Roll members, and that each voter will have 10 votes which he may cast as he chooses amongst the candidates.

(2) The Senate

The Senate will continue to be constituted as at present. As a consequence of the establishment (see paragraph (3) below) of a new Declaration of Rights enforceable by the courts the Senate Legal Committee will be abolished.

(3) The Declaration of Rights

The existing Declaration of Rights will be replaced by a new Declaration affording protection to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual and conferring a right of access to the High Court for the purpose of obtaining redress on any person who alleges that its provisions have been contravened in relation to him. The text of the Declaration and the provisions for its enforcement are set out in Appendix III.*

(4) Renewal of Declarations of Emergency

Section 61 of the Constitution will be amended so as to reduce the period within which a Declaration of Emergency requires renewal by resolution of the House of Assembly from 12 months to 9 months.

(5) Amendment of the Constitution

(a) The Rhodesian Government have given an assurance to the British Government that they will not introduce or support in the Rhodesian Parliament any amendment of the specially entrenched provisions of the Constitution relating to the composition of the House of Assembly or the specially entrenched provisions of the Electoral Act until the first two African higher roll seats have been created and filled or until three years have elapsed since the Constitutional changes provided for by these proposals have come into force, whichever is the sooner.
(b) Until the date by which the Commission referred to in sub-paragraph (l)(k) above is required to report, or the date on which it reports if that is earlier, a Bill to amend any of the specially entrenched provisions of the Constitution will require, in addition to the existing requirements of the affirmation votes in each House of the Legislature of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the House, the affirmative votes in the House of Assembly of a majority of the total European membership and of a majority of the total African membership.
(c) The existing provision to the effect that a Bill to increase the number of members of the House of Assembly without altering the proportion of African members to the total number of members shall not on that account be regarded as amending a specially entrenched provision will be repealed.
(d) The specially entrenched provisions of the Constitution will include:

(i) The new provisions to give effect to the proposals in paragraph II(1) above;
(ii) The new Declaration of Rights, including the provisions for its enforcement by the High Court;
(iii) The amended Section 61 relating to Declarations of Emergency.

(e) The following provisions of the Electoral Act will be subject to the same requirements as regards amendment as the specially entrenched provisions of the Constitution.

(i) Those prescribing the qualifications and disqualifications for registration of voters on the European roll and both African rolls;
(ii) Those prescribing the qualifications and disqualifications for candidates for election to the House of Assembly;
(iii) The provision for variation of the means qualifications for voters in consequence of changes in prices; and
(iv) The provisions prescribing the composition of the Tribal Electoral Colleges.

Section 26 of the Electoral Act, which provides for the gradual increase of means and educational qualifications for the existing African roll so that, when parity is reached,


they are the same as those for the European roll, will be repealed.

III. Review of existing legislation

The Rhodesian Government have intimated to the British Government their firm intention, within the spirit of these proposals, to make progress towards ending racial discrimination. Accordingly an independent Commission will be set up to examine the question of racial discrimination. It will be required to consider existing legislation and to make recommendations to the Rhodesian Government on ways of making progress towards ending any racial discrimination. There shall be included in the functions of the Commission a special duty to scrutinise the provisions of the Land Tenure Act and to consider the possible creation of an independent and permanent Land Board to preside over the long-term resolutions of the problems involved. The terms of reference of the Commission, which will consist of three members, one of whom will be an African, are set out in Appendix IV. Its membership will he agreed with the British Government. The Commission will be established as soon as possible after the test of acceptability has been completed. its findings will be published.

The Rhodesian Government recognise that the findings of the Commission will carry special authority and have given an assurance that they will commend to Parliament such changes in existing legislation as are required to give effect to its recommendations, subject only to considerations that any Government would be obliged to regard as of an overriding character.

IV. Review of cases of detainees and restrictees

The Rhodesian Government stated that 23 detainees have been released since the end of March 1971, leaving 93 detainees and 2 restrictees (excluding 34 detainees who have been released on conditions). It is the Rhodesian Government's intention to release a further 31 detainees as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made.

Since the settlement will have created a new situation there will be a new special review of the cases of all detainees and restrictees to see whether, in the light of changed circumstances, they can be released or the restrictions can be removed without prejudice to the maintenance of public safety and public order. This review will be carried out by the existing tribunal, of which the Chairman is a Judge of the Rhodesian High Court, as soon as possible after the test of acceptability has been completed. The recommendations of the tribunal will be binding on the detaining or restricting authority. For the purposes of this special review an observer appointed by the British Government in agreement with the Rhodesian Government will be entitled to be present.

V. Land

In the African area there is at present approximately 5 million acres of unoccupied land which is available for settlement by Africans, 3 ½ million in the Tribal Trust Lands and 1½ million in the purchase area. Provision exists under which significant additional land

can be made available and the Rhodesian Government intend to make it available as the need arises.

Both Governments agree that they will immediately devote a proportion of the aid referred to in paragraph VI of these pro-proposals to the improvement of areas cur-recently occupied or intended for occupation by Africans.

With the exception of certain forest and national park areas the development of which may involve the removal of a limited number of occupants without established rights, the only two cases in which the Rhodesian Government are considering the eviction of Africans from land in the European area are Epworth and Chishawasha Missions. The Rhodesian Government have given an assurance that they will not take steps to evict African tenants or other occupants from these two areas or from other areas in which they are living until such time as the Commission referred to in paragraph III above has reported and its recommendations have been fully considered.

VI. Development programme

The two Governments attach the greatest importance to the expansion of the economy of Rhodesia and, in particular, to stimulating economic growth in the Tribal Trust Lands. There will therefore be a development programme to increase significantly educational and job opportunities for Africans in order to enable them to play a growing part in the country's future development, and early discussions between the two Governments will be held to agree on this programme and the best means of implementing it.

The British Government will provide up to £5 million per year for a period of 10 years in capital aid and technical assistance to be applied to purposes and projects to be agreed with the Rhodesian Government to be matched appropriately by sums provided by the Rhodesian Government for this development programme. This will be in addition to the annual expenditure currently planned by the Rhodesian Government for African education and housing and for development projects in the Tribal Trust Lands and African Purchase Areas. Part of this development programme will be devoted to the establishement of new irrigation schemes, intensive cultivation projects, industrial projects and the improvement of communications in the Tribal Trust Lands and African Purchase Areas. As regards education, the moneys will be used to improve and expand facilities for Africans in agriculture, technical and vocational training, teacher training and training in administration and for other educational purposes in the field of primary, secondary and higher education.

The parallel development of the two elements in this programme will thus help to ensure that new job opportunities for Africans will become available as the economy expands and additional educational facilities are provided for them.

VII. Other matters

(1) As vacancies occur in the Rhodesian Public Service they will be filled according to


the criteria of merit and suitability, regardless of race. The Rhodesian Government have undertaken to take steps to enable an increasing number of Africans to fit themselves to compete on equal terms with candidates of other races so far as appointments or promotions are concerned.
(2) Rhodesian citizens who have left Rhodesia for any reason will be allowed to return freely and without being subjected to any restrictions by reason of their past activities, but without amnesty in respect of any criminal offence.
(3) The Rhodesian Government wish to revoke the state of emergency at the earliest opportunity. In the absence of unforeseen circumstances they will do so after sanctions against Rhodesia have been lifted.

VIII. Implementation

As soon as the British Government are satisfied that the legislation referred to in paragraph II above has been enacted and steps taken to give effect to the proposals in paragraphs III and IV above they will introduce legislation to confer independence on Rhodesia as a republic and will commend this legislation to the British Parliament. They will also terminate their economic and other sanctions when this legislation takes effect. Both Governments will take steps to settle outstanding financial and other issues and to regularise relations between the two countries and matters affecting the personal status of individuals.

Nothing in these proposals shall be regarded as implying any change in the current attitude of either side to the present status of Rhodesia or of the 1969 Constitution.

The above proposals are acceptable to the British and the Rhodesian Governments.

24 November, 1971.

* Not attached.

ANNEX B

APPENDIX I

EUROPEAN ROLL AND AFRICAN HIGHER ROLL QUALIFICATIONS

(a) Income at the rate of not less than $1,800 per annum during the two years preceding date of claim for enrolment, or ownership of immovable property of value of not less than $3,600.

OR

(b) (i) Income at the rate of not less than $1,200 per annum during the two years preceding date of claim for enrolment, or ownership of immovable property of value of not less than $2,400; and

(ii) four years secondary education of prescribed standard.

ANNEX B

APPENDIX II

AFRICAN LOWER ROLL QUALIFICATIONS

(a)Income at the rate of not less than $600 per annum during the two years preceding date of claim for enrolment, or ownership of

immovable property of value of not less than $1,100.

OR

(b)(i) Income at the rate of not less than $300 per annum during the two years preceding date of claim for enrolment, or ownership of immovable property of value of not less than $600; and

(ii) two years' secondary education of prescribed standard.

OR

(c) Persons over 30 years of age with—

(i) Income at the rate of not less than $300 per annum during the two years preceding the date of claim for enrolment, or ownership of immovable property of value of not less than $600; and
(ii) completion of a course of primary education of a prescribed standard.

OR

(d) Persons over 30 years of age with—
Income at the rate of not less than $430 per annum during the two years preceding the date of claim for enrolment or ownership of immovable property of value of not less than $800.

OR

(e) All kraal heads with a following of 20 or more heads of families.

ANNEX B

APPENDIX IV

TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION TO EXAMINE THE QUESTION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

1. The Commission will carry out an examination of all aspects of the question of racial discrimination in Rhodesia. The Commission will review all existing laws (including subsidiary legislation and the administrative practices thereunder) to determine which such provisions or practices in its opinion are discriminatory. The Commission may receive evidence from any relevant source and the Government of Rhodesia will ensure that its officials will co-operate fully with the Commission in this respect.
2. The Commission will make recommendations to the Rhodesian Government on ways of making progress towards the ending of any racial discrimination and its Report will be published.
3. The Commission is required to give special attention to the provisions of the Land Tenure Act. The Commission shall consider interalia—

(a) the question of removing any restrictions on the entry into European areas of Africans wishing to attend multi-racial places of education or to be admitted to multiracial hospitals, and any other restrictions on occupation;
(b) the question of removing any restrictions on the right of an African member of the professions to practise in a European area:


(c) in the light of the national interest, the question of the equitable allocation of land in relation to the needs of the respective sections of the population; and
(d) the possible creation of an independent and permanent multi-racial Land Board to preside over the long-term resolution of the problems involved.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): The business for next week will be as follows:—
MONDAY, 29TH NOVEMBER.—Supply (2nd allotted day): Conclusion of the debate on Northern Ireland. Remaining stages of the New Towns Bill. Motions on the Education (Provision of Milk and Meals) Regulations.
TUESDAY, 30TH NOVEMBER—Supply (3rd allotted day): There will be a debate on Pensions, which will arise on an Opposition Motion. Remaining stages of the Banking and Financial Dealings Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 1ST DECEMBER—A debate on Rhodesia, on a Government Motion. Motions on the Textile Council Orders and the Import Duties (General) (No. 7) Order.
THURSDAY, 2ND DECEMBER—Supply (4th allotted day): There will be a debate on a Motion to take note of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in Session 1970–71, and the related Treasury Minute (Command No. 4817).
FRIDAY, 3RD DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 6TH DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill.

Mr. Driberg: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has noted Early Day Motion No. 63 which has been signed by hon. Members who are in favour of and some who are opposed to the broadcasting of the proceedings of Parliament?

[That this House, in view of the varying opinions expressed by hon. Members on the question of broadcasting the proceedings of Parliament, urges Her Majesty's Government to provide a full

day, other than a Friday, for a debate on this subject; considers that, if the debate should end in a division, the matter should be determined by a free vote of all hon. Members, including members of Her Majesty's Government; and commends to the attention of hon. Members the report of the Select Committee of 1966 (House of Commons Paper No. 146), in which the relevant evidence and arguments were thoroughly examined.]

Will he please consider giving a full day, not a Friday, to this quite important subject?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose Motion I have noted, as I have noted the other Motions concerned with this important matter. I repeat my undertaking that a full day of Government time will be allocated to a debate on this important subject. It will probably be after Christmas, and I shall ensure that it is a day generally convenient to right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether this is the right moment, but I ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House to consider the statement we have recently heard. Is this the appropriate moment to do so?

Mr. Speaker: No, not until questions on the business statement are finished. I will tell the hon. and learned Gentleman when the time comes.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In the debate on Rhodesia on 1st December, would my right hon. Friend consider suspending the rule for 1½ hours?

Mr. Whitelaw: This can be considered through the usual channels, and I undertake to do that.

Mr. Maclennan: Is the Leader of the House prepared to consider giving more than one day's debate to the Rhodesian question? The House is unaware of the terms of the Motion but if, in any sense, it is definitive and something to which the House may give its imprimatur, it is clearly unacceptable that only four hours' debate should be available to backbenchers who seek to protect the 5 million Africans who appear to have been betrayed.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am prepared to discuss the matter through the usual channels, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will speak with his Front Bench if he wishes to pursue this matter.

Mr. Thorpe: As I do not flow down the usual channels, may I press the Leader of the House a little further? Is he yet in a position—if he says "No" one will understand it—to help the House as to the nature of the debate? Will it simply be a "take note" Motion or a Motion seeking approval? Second, will he again give very serious consideration to extending the limit, because even a one-day debate on a Motion to take note, or even to approve, is a very short time for hon. Members in all parts of the House to express their views on a very complex and, from any position, a vital subject which is the responsibility of the House?

Mr. Whitelaw: I shall certainly note what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I shall consider it. The debate will arise on a Government Motion.

Dr. Glyn: Would my right hon. Friend consider Early Day Motion No. 3, standing in my name, on the restriction of time allocated to speakers? Is he also aware that there is considerable pressure on both sides of the House to get this Motion debated. Could he see a way of having the Motion fully discussed in the House, because it is a House of Commons matter?

[That this House considers that, in order to increase the opportunities for back-benchers to contribute to proceedings, the occupant of the Chair should have the power to limit the time taken by back-bench speakers to 10 minutes in any debate, except by leave of the House.]

Mr. Whitelaw: I have previously undertaken that there should be an opportunity to discuss the matter, which is clearly, one for the House. I cannot say when that will be, nor could I give an undertaking about the length of it. I must add that before any such debate takes place right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House who wish to get into debates have their own remedy.

Mr. Pavittt: Is the Leader of the House aware that since 1959 I have entered my name in the ballot 130 times?

On the Order Paper today I have seven National Health Motions which together have attracted 750 signatures from this side of the House. Is it possible that we could discuss one of these matters before Christmas?

[That this House demands a complete revision of the present arrangements for the employment of doctors in National Health Service hospitals with the object of securing the abolition of the secrecy surrounding merit awards for consultants; a more balanced career structure, a square deal for junior hospital doctors and substantial changes in the private practice arrangements made by part-time consultants and specialists for paying patients using National Health Service facilities who should pay their full economic cost.]

[That this House notes that the occupancy of pay-beds in the hospital service was 60 per cent. in 1969, and calls therefore for a 40 per cent. reduction in the total number, now 4,429 in England, authorised under section 5 of the Act.]

[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to issue exemption certificates for prescription charges to all persons who have suffered or are suffering from schizophrenia, coronary thrombosis, chronic asthma, Parkinson's disease, and to all others who require constant or intermittent medication.]

[That this House is of the opinion that substantial resources could be made available for other needs of the National Health Service if Her Majesty's Government made determined efforts to reduce the present expenditure of £203 millions upon the pharmaceutical services for the year 1971–72 by an immediate review of the Voluntary Price Regulation agreements made with drug manufacturers and by the bulk purchase of those medicines most extensively prescribed by general practitioners by exercising the provisions of section 59 of the Health Service and Public Health Act 1968.]

[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government to issue exemption certificates for prescription charges to all women over the age of 60 years.]

[That this House requests Her Majesty's Government to obtain a full report on their progress in implementing the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 from all local authorities,


and also full details of the help they are now making available under the Act after the first year of its operation.]

[That this House believes that the Medical Research Council should retain its close links with the universities and for this and other reasons should remain within the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Education and Science.]

Mr. Whitelaw: Clearly, I commiserate with the hon. Gentleman about getting a place in the Ballot. He may be lucky shortly. I note what he has said, but I could not give an undertaking at present.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the Leader of the House seen Early Day Motion No. 42 about local government reorganisation and the police, which has the support of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House? If he is unable to find time for a debate next week, will he consider finding time for such a debate at the earliest possible date?

[That this House notes with anxiety the effect of the Local Government Bill on the future organisation of the police service; recalling the far-reaching programme of amalgamations completed in 1969, is concerned at the probable breakup of efficient police forces which will result if Her Majesty's Government insists that police force boundaries must be coterminous with those of local authorities; notes that these proposals have created fresh uncertainty and anxieties among serving police officers in respect of their careers and family circumstances; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to consider, as a matter of urgency, entering into further consultations, with the Police Federation and other police organisations, with a view to devising a system of police administration which will retain existing forces as far as is consistent with the interests of police efficiency.]

Mr. Whitelaw: I could not find time for such a debate, although I appreciate entirely the terms of the Motion. Some of these matters arose in the debate on the Local Government Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been considering them. I shall certainly pass on to him what the hon. Gentleman has said.

RHODESIA

Mr. Paget: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Foreign Secretary's statement on Rhodesia.
It seems to me that an immediate short debate should be granted in order that we may perhaps make up for a somewhat curtailed period of questions. I had not expected the right hon. Gentleman to succeed where my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) himself no mean negotiator, had failed in persuading the Rhodesia Front, which after all had profited so much both politically and economically, from the tight Rhodesia economy that resulted from sanctions, particularly when the burden of those sanctions has been felt—

Mr. Clinton Davis: On a point of order.

Mr. Paget: I am on a point of order. Sit down!

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is for me to put hon. Members in their places. When I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has used this opportunity to ask the supplementary question he wanted to ask I may perhaps raise the matter of order myself.

Mr. Paget: Especially as the Africans were carrying the burden of those sanctions, I feel that it was a very remarkable achievement to have—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not make the speech which he would make if his application were successful.

Mr. Paget: Mr. Speaker, I simply add that what seems to me to be a highly important question is that we should be assured that if all public opinion in Rhodesia believes this to be for their benefit, we should not be frustrated by a league of nations, of which members—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has gone far beyond


the case for an emergency debate. He should bring his Motion to the Table.
The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. R. T. Paget) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the Foreign Secretary's statement on Rhodesia.
This is an application under Standing Order No. 9. The matter is for my decision. I regret that I cannot grant the hon. and learned Gentleman's application.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR

MONDAY, 13TH DECEMBER

Members successful in the Ballot were:

Mr. John Hannam.

Mr. Hugh Fraser.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter.

UNEMPLOYED (DEMONSTRATION)

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) raised two issues involving possible prima facie breaches of privilege. These were, first, the stopping of a constituent coming to see his Member at the door of the Palace of Westminster and, second, the arrest of a person who was seeking such access.
I have considered the precedents and I have to rule that, in my view, I should not be justified in allowing a Motion arising from either of these matters to take precedence over the business set down for today.
I have, however, carefully noted the various accounts of difficulties experienced yesterday. What happened outside the precincts of the House is not for me. As for events within the precincts, from such inquiries as I have made, I am informed that over 3,000 people were admitted to meet right hon. and hon. Members. That does not lead one to the conclusion that there was any real failure in the existing arrangements.
I propose, however, to ask the Services Committee to consider whether the arrangements can in any way he improved.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of your statement, many Members—I speak at least for some Members on this side of the House—feel that a full inquiry should be carried out into what happened yesterday, and that, in consequence, not only should evidence be taken from Officers of the House but also from the police, the demonstrators and the stewards of the T.U.C., and that a report should be made to the House, not only to deal with what happened yesterday but to prevent anything like it happening again.
If it is not within your jurisdiction to direct that, Mr. Speaker, I ask the Leader of the House if he would ask his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to set up such an inquiry so that a report could be made to the House, and so that facilities are such that lobbying in the future can be carried out in a peaceful, orderly and democratic manner.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what you have said, may I, in my capacity as Chairman of the Services Committee, say that that Committee will naturally wish to look into all the matters concerning demonstrations in general inside the House where your responsibility, and so its advice to you, properly lies.
I think it is reasonable for me at this stage—the whole House will wish to join in this—to thank all the authorities of the House and, indeed, the police inside the House, for having made arrangements which enabled 3,000 constituents to meet their Members in the House. This was conducted in a most proper and peaceful manner, which reflected great credit on all those concerned. I believe that the House as a whole would wish to have that said.
As to what happened outside the House, I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is at this moment awaiting a report, as is usual and proper, from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who is responsible under the Sessional Order for


maintaining proper access to the House. That is the proper way of proceeding.

Mr. Orme: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate what the Leader of the House has said, but we are not dealing with what happened in Committee Rooms or during the normal process of lobbying, when there was no difficulty. However, there were serious difficulties outside the House.
I recognise that the Home Secretary will consult the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, but many hon. Members believe that that is not sufficient and that there is a prima facie case for an inquiry, in the interests of the police and of the demonstrators. I urge the Leader of the House to ask the Home Secretary to set up such an inquiry.

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order. Naturally my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is only right that the customary report from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police should be received.

Mr. C. Pannell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that the House of Lords will have to be brought into this as well? I have a room overlooking that place and I had a grandstand view yesterday of St. Stephen's. The obstruction the police had to face was the car park of their Lordships' House. Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that, if a demonstration on the lines of that which occurred yesterday is contemplated in future, the whole of that car park should be cleared? The police were undoubtedly obstructed. The Sessional Order was abrogated because of the very nature of trying to seek entrance to this place. We cannot have the Sessional Order and their Lordships' car park. We must make up our minds. The important principle is the accessibility of constituents to their Members and vice versa. We must make different arrangements outside for this.

Mr. Whitelaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—if it is right for me to reply further. The right hon.

Gentleman, who knows much about these matters, has raised rather wider issues than are either your responsibility, Mr. Speaker, or indeed those of the Services Committee in its capacity of advising you.
As these matters concern another place, I will have discussions with my noble Friend the Leader in another place and co-ordinate with him to see what can be done.
As to the Sessional Order, I am assured that, despite all the difficulties, access was preserved, which is a very important feature, because it is the Sessional Order of the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to protect the business of the House. There is a very important debate ahead. I know that hon. Members have strong feelings on this matter. I am wondering whether those who think it appropriate to do so would write to the Leader of the House about these points instead of raising them now.

Mr. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that we have to pursue this matter now, especially as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition wishes to make a very important statement to the House on the question of Ireland. However, events took place yesterday which were of the utmost importance. If events of that seriousness ever occurred outside the House again, it would be a disaster, and any recurrence should be avoided.
I ask that when the Home Secretary receives the report from the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police a report will be given to the House arising from that report, so that we can at least question it and put forward some positive proposals to avoid such events happening again.

Mr. Speaker: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will have heard that point. I will not allow any more points of order relating to events outside the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Even while I was working last night on the notes from which I shall be speaking, yet another British soldier was murdered and two others injured. That is the sombre backcloth to the debate.
I begin by thanking the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister for all the arrangements he made for my Northern Ireland visit, including travel and the help given by United Kingdom civil servants and Armed Forces, enabling me to see in a very short period representatives of almost every point of view, political and religious, the whole, very wide spectrum. This made it possible for me to have 32 meetings in 36 hours of talks in Northern Ireland, some of them at meals arranged by the Governor.
In the Governor's wisdom, grasp and understanding I believe that Northern Ireland is extremely fortunate. At some of the occasions he arranged individuals of widely varying viewpoints were present. It was the whole spectrum, therefore, from the extreme minority point of view to the most extreme of the Ulster Unionists and beyond. Some of my hon. Friends will wish to know that I met a group of shop stewards from a large Belfast factory whose comments made the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) look like a liberal republican by contrast.
On the political side, I met the Northern Ireland Cabinet, in addition to the Prime Minister separately; the back-bench Unionist M.P.s; the members of the Protestant Democratic Unionists; the Northern Ireland Labour Party, the Social and Democratic Labour Party, the new Ulster Movement and the Alliance Party and independent Unionists.
Representatives of religious views included Cardinal Conway; the Church of Ireland Archbishop, leading an interdenominational group of Protestant clergy; Bishop Philbin; the Rev. Eric Gallagher; an ecumenical group ranging from leading Catholics to leading Presbyterians; and Father Murphy, now

Canon Murphy I believe, with Mr. Conaty.
I met the Northern Ireland T.U.C., C.B.I., Chamber of Commerce and Chamber of Trade, two representatives of retail trade interests whose interests have been very much prejudiced by the violence, a group of Catholic doctors and surgeons, and the chairman of a women's reconciliation movement.
I had a long briefing from the G.O.C., arranged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite on Privy Counicillor terms, with the chief constable and his senior officers, and in Derry from the Brigadier and the police chief, and on my last day a full discussion with the police authority set up under the Hunt reforms. I visited Long Kesh and Palace Barracks and in Derry had a full and impressive meeting with the Development Commission established in the 1969 reforms, on which occasion the Catholic representatives, who had withdrawn from the Commission following internment, rejoined their colleagues for this special meeting with me.
I had the opportunity of talking to soldiers on active duty and on call, to a group of policewomen and lady clerks, to one badly injured police officer who had been in police stations damaged or destroyed by explosions, to Long Kesh warders and to two internees.
As the House knows, I spent a part of the Thursday visiting first a community centre in the Short Strand area, where I met a number of Protestant householders and community and youth workers, and in North Belfast a gathering of Catholic householders and community workers. It was not many yards from the Paxton Street meeting which I held that three hours after my visit a soldier was murdered and another gravely injured.
One group I did not see was representatives of the I.R.A., in accordance with my announcement that I would not meet any men who sought to change the existing order by violence. I had reason in the North to regard a message which reached me as a suggestion for a meeting, and this was confirmed by something said to me in Dublin. But I felt it right to adhere to my refusal to see them.
In Dublin I spent 10 hours in all in meetings with the Prime Minister and


members of his Cabinet, and leaders and members of Fine Gael and the Irish Labour Party and of the newly-formed Republican Unity Party, formed by Mr. Boland. Hon. Members on both sides of this House who represent, and have lived all their lives in, Northern Irish constituencies will be the first to agree with me that a three-day visit can do no more than scratch the surface, though I hope they will agree that in that time I saw as many representatives of every viewpoint and interest as it was possible to see, and will feel that the impressions I now seek to record are an honest appraisal of all I saw and heard in Northern Ireland. Those Northern Irish Members who expressed a willingness to see me—two Unionists deputed by their colleagues and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—gave me their views in meetings behind Mr. Speaker's Chair before my visit.
Many who presently find themselves unable to take either their places in their elected seats in Stormont or such appointments as the Derry Commission or to place their views before the Home Secretary spoke very frankly to me, and, with their knowledge, a report of our meetings is available to Her Majesty's Government. I pressed them on the question of resuming normal activities and contacts, but I failed. I respect their answer, and I will explain later why I accept that it has become impossible in present circumstances for them to resume normal sittings and contacts. Indeed, I regret to say that I would be extremely worried about the consequences were they to try. Anyone who fails to appreciate their reasons does not recognise the facts of Northern Ireland today, how increasingly desperate and dangerous the situation has become over these past three weeks, almost week by week, and how the task of reconciliation has become increasingly difficult. I ask the House to recognise the high quality, determination and courage of so many, of both communities, who are striving in their personal lives and in other ways for reconciliation, striving to rebuild confidence and, above all, to damp down fear, the overriding fear, the suspicion, the bitterness, the hatred—in some cases hate beyond all reason—which I found on my visit and which is the true appraisal of Northern Ireland in November, 1971.
Of course, a great deal of this is deeply rooted in history. There are too many on the one side who speak as though the greatest festival of the Christian calendar was to commemorate not the rising from the Sepulchre in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago but the rising in and around Dublin Post Office 55 years ago. There are too many on the other side who appear to think that history began and ended in 1689 and 1690. There are too many who appear to feel that marching feet and broken heads are substitutes for thought or that worn-out slogans are substitutes for constructive proposals. I regret it if words I have used in the House have given offence on both sides. What I realise much more now is how much the marching, the uniforms, the martial music and the dynastic songs are themselves the creations of fear about the future and an attempt to express a determination, as far as those concerned can express it, that those fears shall never become a reality.
Yet I must tell the House that in most of my meetings I did not sense the pre-occupation with long-dead history that so many accounts of Northern Ireland suggest. I heard a lot more about the Downing Street Declaration on all sides than about the Battle of the Boyne. I heard far more about Lord Hunt than about Oliver Cromwell, though many who spoke to me who would have idolised Cromwell were far from feeling the same about the noble Lord. This could be a reason for hope, though I dread to think how even now the history of the events of the past three years, of the past three months even, is being rewritten in accordance with two fundamentally opposing interpretations of history.
The House will recall my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) saying that a big step forward would have been taken when boys and girls from both Protestant and Catholic schools were taught their history from the same text books. That is true. I fear that the problem is not only the history of 1651, 1689 or 1921 but that it applies and will apply no less to the history of these times, of 1969, 1970 and 1971. For very many who will be studying this history, the events of the Falls Road in July, 1970, and internment in August, 1971, expressed in fact and before very long in legend, will be regarded as turning points as great in


their consequences as many of the events of years ago.
Just before I left for Northern Ireland a British newspaper began its leading article with a quotation from Sean O'Casey:
The hate, the murdering hate …".
The sense of that fear and hate is the first impression I must lay before the House. The murderous hate will, I believe, be contained and put down. What there is no immediate prospect of dissipating is the fear and festering hate which created it, tolerated it and in growing measure has fostered it, the attitudes which obstructed and still obstruct its speedy elimination.
Second, I refer to the Army. Whatever differences of view are taken here and elsewhere about the policies under which the Army operates—the mistaken actions in the heat of the moment, in the face of a form of urban violence which hardly any army in the free world has ever had to face—whatever the feelings, there can only be from all of us totally unqualified admiration and tribute for those who, on the policies of successive Governments, with parliamentary support, by day and by night undertake these fundamentally distasteful and dangerous duties.
I talked to those of almost every individual rank during my visit, and there can be no stinting of the expression of the debt owed by the House and those whom we represent. I believe that the soldiers are superbly generalled. There can be no doubt about the military qualifications and qualities of General Tuzo. What impressed me was the wisdom, statesmanship and political sensitivity he brings to a task that no training curriculum in the Army or anywhere else could ever have provided. Hon. Members who have visited Belfast and Derry, and even more those who live there, will agree about the maturity as well as the coolness and fair-minded approach of the very young soldiers serving there, some of them for the second or even third time. Incidentally, I was given the clear impression that the Army is totally opposed to any censorship of television or Press reporting.
The tragedy for all of us is now the overwhelming testimony about the situation that the Army faces, I believe

through no fault of a single serving soldier. In August, 1969, they were cheered as they marched in. Not everyone could have foreseen that that would be so. I was desperately worried about their reception when we gave the order. They were there as neutrally and fairly representing the authority of Britain, above the battle—indeed, it was hoped, as the best guarantee that there would be no battle. That was their task, and strict were the orders to enforce it. Time and time again I was told by Catholics I met that the Catholics above all welcomed the troops as being there for their protection against the Orange backlash which they feared. Last Thursday I took down the words of a young Catholic worker in the Greencastle area. He had come to the meeting from Unity Flats, where he lived. The people there, he said, speaking of the entry of the Army in 1969, "had tears in their eyes. It was like the relief of"—and he tried to find a parallel—"Ladysmith. My father, who fought in the Republican Army against the British, came down to the street, and he told me afterwards, 'I put out my hand and shook hands with a British major.'" I was given the major's name and unit. The man told me that his father said, "I had never thought that I would ever live to see the day when I would want to do that." "Now," my informant went on "the children of the Unity Flats are spitting on British soldiers."
The way in which he put it, and the way in which others have put it, was that the troops are today fighting two wars—the I.R.A. and what we called the residents of the Catholic ghettos. I believe that to be totally untrue, but the important fact in the situation which we must take into account is that so many people believe it.
We all have a duty to ensure that the Government here, this House and the Army there—all of us—are discharging our tasks, and are seen to be doing so, in a posture of complete neutrality as between the two principal communities in Northern Ireland.
I was also told that a few weeks ago internment was a fear—the fear of the early morning knock on the door. Today, I was told, many people regard it as an award; an accolade or decoration


of war. I was told that when mothers meet in shops one will congratulate the other on her son's internment.
What I have said about the soldiers I believe applies in the main to the police I met. There is within the police, and certainly within the police authority, a real desire to press on with the Hunt reforms, even though Lord Hunt was legislating for a peace-time establishment and rôle, a rôle very different from the situation in which some brave officers and their equally brave families must operate. It is of supreme importance that the Hunt reforms proceed apace, and that is what the police authority—and here the Catholics are still fully represented—are working to achieve.
The defence of police stations is one thing, and I understand the pressures on the Home Secretary and his decision. But any suggestion to reconstitute the "B" Specials or arm the men on the beat—I appreciate that he faces ugly dangers and that his colleagues have met a cowardly death—would in my view be utterly wrong.
It is not my task today to attempt a military appreciation, still less to reveal what I was told on Privy Councillor terms about the arrangements made by the right hon. Gentleman. From a number of those whom I met—not on a basis enjoining secrecy—there was a feeling of very cautious, restrained, touching-wood optimism that the worst of the violence is over.
If that is so—and I regret having to say this to any of my hon. Friends, especially in view of my own criticisms at the time—then part at least of this—and some in a position to estimate said this even if they were opposed to internment at the time—is due to information available as a result of internment, and only so available. That is, of course, entirely different from the political consequences of the internment decision, to which I will come later—the short-term and long-term effects on winning hearts and minds for the campaign against violence. It is right for me to give an honest appraisal whether what I say is agreeable now—or would have been so before I went—to any hon. Member in any part of the House.
Some of those who expressed short-run optimism feared that an end to

violence would be only for a limited time—not for six years this time like the last lull—and that it would provide an opportunity to recruit, regroup, retrain and build up financial resources and the munitions of street violence.
There were some who commented on the intellectual resources that are available to the Provisionals, in contrast to the old, rather more crude I.R.A.—the sophistication of their psychological warfare, black propaganda, their ability to play on hatred and fear—above all on fear—and their success in converting lies into legends.
I repeat that there can be no progress while violence lasts. In that sense, there must be what is called a military solution, which means the elimination, the extirpation of violence and, if necessary, the men of violence. This does not necessarily mean going right on until the shooting of the last gunman and gelignite carrier. Policies should be directed to a solution where the gunman and bomber withdraws, because the end is inevitable, folds up his tent and steals silently away—where there is nobody left to shoot.
It is here that we come to the question of a political solution. In my view no political solution can come about, or be put into effect, until what is called the military solution is effective—until the security problem is solved and is seen to be solved.
It is no less important, however, that work should begin, discussions entered into, at the earliest possible moment, without waiting for the completion of the security task. Indeed, this is essential in my view to help the security forces in that task—in winning hearts and minds which have been desperately alienated.
While I have said that no political advance can be implemented now, it must be clear that the comprehensive and adequate political solution which must be worked out, starting now, will be implemented, progressively, stage by stage, the day the shooting stops.
As to the form of such a solution, I need not tell the House that I was presented with a rich diversity of proposals. I have identified over 30 different ones, in addition to the advice of those who warned even against the use of the phrase "political solution" because of the fears


they said it would invoke in a substantial section of the population. I said that it must be comprehensive and adequate, and I shall outline what I think it should include before I come to the end of my speech.
There is one thing above all that needs to be said, and this is my third impression. Nowhere more than in Northern Ireland—not even in India, Cyprus or Kenya—have we seen more clearly the law of diminishing returns at work in the adequacy and effectiveness of a given set of reforms. What might be effective, even gratefully grasped, at one moment can become tragically inadequate and irrelevant a year or two, a month or two, a week or two, and even in the present circumstances I could almost say a day or two later because of the march of other events.
The O'Neill reforms, formulated with courage and imagination on his initiative, strongly pressed by our Government on him, had a part to play. The tragedy was that they had been so long withheld that 40 years of necessary advance had to be concentrated into four. Even so he fell, not because they were then seen as inadequate but because he could not carry his party, including some leading members of his Cabinet, with him.
The Downing Street Declaration, reaffirming both the nature of the reforms and the will of both Governments to carry them into effect, had, I believe, a real degree of acceptance at the time and a degree of magic, as influential Catholics with a detailed knowledge of their grass roots have confirmed. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East recently said, the political effects, the adequacy now, in this situation, of the Downing Street Declaration, is today almost as though it had never been promulgated. Many of the reforms have been implemented, or are in the process of implementation, but they are as dust in the wind in terms of adequacy for a political solution.
Mr. Faulkner, who as Development Minister played a leading and determined part in their implementation, himself made new proposals on becoming Prime Minister. The nature of them must have made some of his Unionist predecessors turn in their graves. His proposals to involve minority parties in the work of

his proposed parliamentary committees, with key chairmanships for minority Members, may be discounted now—but I ask those who sneer at them now to note the enthusiastic and strong welcome given to them by, for example, S.D.L.P. Members like my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West and Mr. John Hume. But within weeks the S.D.L.P. Members had withdrawn from the Stormont House, for quite other reasons—the Cusack shooting and the refusal to hold an independent inquiry. So we see that something that was welcomed then is now inadequate.
Again, the so-called Green Paper on constitutional reform, which both in respect of P.R. and the issue of collective responsibility within a broader-based Cabinet—which I felt was inadequate at the time, as I informed Mr. Faulkner—is now equally blowing in the wind so far as acceptability is concerned.
I have to say that the same is true of the 12-point proposals which I made in a speech in the country in September, and to which I referred in the House on 22nd September. They might have had validity or appeal at any time before the days of early August, but once the internment decision was made the whole situation was changed and my proposals, too, are victims of the law of diminishing acceptability. I should have realised that then. I realise it now. It took my visit to bring home to me, as I must try to bring home to the House, the traumatic change which the internment decision brought about.
The words I am about to use are words which one should use only with the utmost caution, but I believe it is true that following internment nothing can ever be quite the same again. This process of diminishing acceptability is not just to be dismissed as the perversity of the Irish or of the Catholic population, after the famous reference to Mr. Gladstone, of whom it was said that in his declining years he devoted himself to seeking an answer to the Irish question, only to find, whenever he was getting warm, that the Irish had changed the question. That is not the point here. It is a basic elemental question of lack of confidence, created by an ever-increasing sense of fear, which no words, no speech, no diffident delineation of reforms and, it


would seem, almost no action can change. It has reached a position where what matters as an objective fact is the situation is not what the facts are—they are always challenged—but what people believe.
I give an example. I was at Long Kesh, I was told that the construction of the internment camp had begun in April, but it was hurriedly explained that this was a contingency decision in case internment was decided upon at some future date. Others believe that in March or April the Stormont Government took the decision in principle, subject to being able to convince the British Government in the light of provocative acts by terrorists in the summer. I do not know which interpretation is true. Perhaps no one will ever know. But it is an important element in the situation, and in the estimate of the support for violence, that the more sinister explanation is so widely believed, and nothing now will talk them out of it.
It must be recalled that not only the elected representatives of the minority, but all those whom they are elected to represent, are, and have been for more than half a century, denied any power to influence, still less to determine, the conditions under which they live. They are doomed to a position of impotence; they are denied the ability to present alternative policies, as the major parties in this House are not, on which the electorate could vote and return an alternative Government.
Naturally, I heard a great deal in the North about the theocratic nature of the Irish Republican Constitution, with the power it was considered this gave over a secular government. I shall return to that point. But in a real sense the practice, if not the constitution, of Northern Ireland also is theocratic, in that no Government can be elected, no Prime Minister selected—certainly none could long survive—without the approval and support of the Orange Order, which itself is a body formed to uphold strict religious forms, and capable of enforcing its views under a de facto one-party system of government whose membership of the ruling party and of the Government corresponds closely with membership of the Order.
But while we have a great responsibility in this House, as we must always

have, for reassuring the now gravely alienated minority, we have to remember the million who form the majority. It is all too frequent in the affairs of nations to forget that majorities, too, have their rights. Many among the majority are as fearful and as bitter as any in the minority. It is too easy to refer to majority aggressiveness and arrogance but not often enough realised that this is caused by fear and insecurity. Any settlement must provide a real future, real security, certainty in which families can make their own domestic plans, for Protestants as well as for Catholics, and both communities have an equal right to a secure future and to the ability to live their lives in their own way. This must mean also—and without it is almost meaningless to examine what this solution can be—offering to the people of Northern Ireland the right to work that some of us have asserted for the men of the Clyde and indeed for all on this side of the water.
This is going to mean a massive injection of capital from the national Exchequer, from the constituents of all of us here. Today generous incentives in Northern Ireland for the attraction of new industry—more generous than in any other part of the United Kingdom—have to contend with the overriding disincentive of violence and fear. That must be recognised but it must not, when violence has been put down, be an excuse for parsimony or neglect in the provision of that economic help, giving work for Protestant and Catholic alike, which it is our clear duty to ensure.
Before I discuss the principles on which any political solution must be based, I would like to give two final impressions. I referred to the quality of so many of those I met, in both communities, and above all those in the churches, the professions, the reconciliation movements and on both sides of industry. The tragedy is their political ineffectiveness in a province where for too long political processes have been decided, with totally predictable results, on the basis of hard line religious attitudes, one or the other, and an obsession with the past, with—and this is a serious point—no middle ground to which Government and Opposition can appeal and must appeal. There have been years with no attempt at a consensus, no possibility at any time of attaining a consensus.
Great advances have been recorded with the new bi-communal authorities, such as the Derry Commission. That Commission takes decisions with deep religious connotations every day—the siting of houses or of flats and other decisions affecting Catholics and Protestants. But they are taken without bigotry and, over three years now, with so little division between Protestant and Catholics that a vote has never been taken on the Commission. But the Commission is now under sentence of death under the local government reforms.
With the police authority also I believe that still more could be achieved if there were less political control and interference. I would like to see the reaction of the Lancashire Police Authority or of the Chief Constable if the Home Office sought similarly to interfere, as happens in Northern Ireland. But then, of course, security questions do not govern the very conditions of life in Lancashire as they do in Northern Ireland. Politics in Lancashire, amateur and professional, do not have to be concerned primarily with security. One of the factors inhibiting the development of real policemanship—a phrase used to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East and me when Mr. Robert Mark was sent over there and reported back to us more than two years ago—is that every politician in Northern Ireland at every level is an expert on security—he feels he has to be—and that too many tend to identify security with repression.
But the sense of quality which struck me goes deep in the professions and on both sides of industry and in some politicians on both sides, including, some on the extremes. The potential of management there, to say nothing of the puritanical attitude to work of Northern Irish workers, is such that if I were a Dublin politician and a proposal to abolish the Border were put to me, I would have the same fear that the easy-going Malaysians had when they agreed to absorb the vigorous Singaporeans, to say nothing of Mr. Lee Kuan Yew. I think that there are many, North and South, who would regard the absorption of Ulster by the South as being what is called, in Stock Exchange parlance, a reverse takeover.
But the most compelling impression any visitor to Northern Ireland feels is what effect this present situation must

have on the children of the Province, Protestant and Catholic. Teenagers, and those still younger, are encouraged and duped into street fighting in conditions which must condition their characters and instincts for years to come; there is inculcation of hatred and violence; there are incidents such as one which a young Catholic mother alleged to me—of a police officer, not of the post-Hunt school and, if the allegations are right, I would feel that he is a highly exceptional throwback, provoking and bullying young schoolchildren. I asked for the evidence, so that it could be referred to the inquiry machinery. If it is one-tenth true, it is appalling. What is important again is perhaps no longer what is true but what is believed. And it is even more important with children.
Think of the effect on children when their father is suddenly taken away in a dawn swoop for detention and interrogation, perhaps internment—no communication, no idea where he is. He may be sick and people may fear for his future. They do not know how long he will be away. What does that mean for the generation of tomorrow? Think of what Protestant mothers in the Short Strand area, and Catholics who met me in the Greencastle area told me about the condition in which their children sleep or are too frightened to sleep in night after night of terror. Hon. Members on both sides know this to be true and, time and again in our debates in the House, have used their authority to inform the House about it.
Many of us on this side of the House owe part of our political education to reproductions of the Will Dyson cartoon in the old Daily Herald in 1919. Hon. Members opposite will know of it, too. It was a cartoon of the statesmen of Versailles and a child tragically labelled "class of 1940". The words said by one of the statesmen were:
Curious, I seem to hear a child weeping.
We are Versailles 50 years later—that is Belfast and Derry today, and we have to pause in our own conflicts and ponder what it means. That child crying today wears the insignia of the class of the guerrillas, the gunmen or the vigilantes—the class of 1980, the class of 1990, the class of all the years there are to come. We cannot approach the principles which must govern a political solution unless


these questions and whatever answers we give to them are kept in the forefront of our minds. I repeat, time is not on our side nor on the side of anyone else in this situation.
I submit these principles to the House, therefore, before I come to what that political solution might be.
First, the political solution must not be brought about by violence; nor, in constructing such a solution, can we be allowed to take into consideration the demands of the men of violence. The violence must be rooted out before any new proposals can be put into effect.
Second, this means a security solution, the assertion of effective law and order, in that the men of violence must be either destroyed or compelled to retire.
Third, it follows that British troops must remain as long as they are required to maintain public order, the supremacy of law and the safeguarding of human life. There can be no withdrawal.
Fourth, equally, it must be recognised that no solution depending solely on the preservation of law and order by the forces of law and order can hope to succeed, still less persist, without progress to a far-reaching political solution.
Fifth, the constitutional position must continue to be governed by the Attlee Declaration of 1949, reaffirmed in the Downing Street Declaration of 19th August 1969, namely, that:
… Northern Ireland should not cease to be a part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland or from the provision in Section 1 of the Ireland Act, 1949, that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part thereof cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland …
Sixth, it follows that the Border cannot be changed by violence. Any political solution must be directed to winning the hearts and minds of the Northern Ireland population, Protestant and Catholic, to the proposition that no violent solution, no matter whence it derives, can ever be accepted, that the task of achieving reconciliation and free agreement is of such a dimension that it means recognising that a political solution capable of sufficing for a short duration must rapidly prove outdated and inadequate. It

means recognising that a comprehensive, more fundamental, approach is required.
Seventh, I have reiterated the Downing Street Declaration reaffirming the Attlee pledge, and insisted yet again that any settlement must be by agreement. But I believe that the situation has now gone so far that it is impossible to conceive of an effective long-term solution in which the agenda at least does not include consideration of, and which is not in some way directed to finding a means of achieving, the aspirations envisaged half a century ago, of progress towards a united Ireland, to which statesmen of all views in Northern Ireland have expressed their support, in the right conditions and on the right terms, within the parameters of the Attlee Declaration. At Guildhall, 10 days ago, the Prime Minister said:
Many Catholics in Northern Ireland would like to see Northern Ireland unified with the South. That is understandable. It is legitimate that they should seek to further that aim by democratic and constitutional means. If at some future date the majority of the people in Northern Ireland want unification and express that desire in the appropriate constitutional manner, I do not believe any British Government would stand in the way. But that is not what the majority want today.
A substantial term of years will be required before any concept of unification could become a reality, but the dream must be there. If men of moderation have nothing to hope for, men of violence will have something to shoot for.
Eighth, in the short term, as equally in the long term, the governance of Northern Ireland must be at all times directed to the human rights provisions of the Downing Street Declaration, namely:
… in all legislation and executive decisions of Government, every citizen of Northern Ireland is entitled to the same equality of treatment and freedom from discrimination as obtains in the rest of the United Kingdom irrespective of political views or religion …
Ninth, in the short term, equally with the long term, the minority should participate at all levels in Parliament and Government, independently of what their long-term views, aims or aspirations may be, provided that they undertake loyally to accept the interim system of Government in Northern Ireland.
Tenth, I believe that as part of the task of reconciliation, of the removal of


bitterness from Northern Ireland politics and institutions, Her Majesty's Government, with their responsibility to this House, should take over Ministerial responsibility for all aspects of security, providing in police matters the maximum local devolution to the Ulster Police Authority.
From these principles, if they are agreed—and of course they will be a matter of great controversy in this House and still more outside—it would follow that such proposed solutions as the suspension of the Stormont Parliament and Government, and their supersession either by a commission of politicians or a commission divorced from politics and politicians should, in my view, fall. I do not support suspension. The same applies to the imposition, as an act of policy, of direct rule.
My view, which I expressed in April and September in our debates and in speeches outside the House—and everything I have seen and heard confirms me in this view—is that direct rule cannot be ruled out as a last resort, as a counsel of despair, were the existing processes of law and order and civil government to be deemed by the Westminster Parliament and by this House to have failed. But, as an act of policy, as something to be worked for, direct rule must, I submit, be totally rejected.
Equally, I totally reject proposals for the withdrawal of British troops, hard though their task must be. In the present situation of communal hostility in the Province, this House must not rule out, in the absence of British troops, the possibility of civil war and massacre which could make the eve of St. Bartholomew an event of minor proportions. That is the reality we face.
Finally, I come to an outline of the proposals which we—and I hope all others concerned in Northern and Southern Ireland—should consider carefully and in a spirit of reconciliation. The proposals are these.
First, violence must cease, and be seen to have ceased.
Second, I would suggest that there should be inter-party talks here, within this House, and then with the principal parties in Northern Ireland. If agreement can be reached, or some consensus arrived at between the parties, having had

the bilateral meetings, this should then lead to discussions between the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, directed to the establishment of a constitutional commission representing the major parties of the three Parliaments, including of course adequate representation of the Government parties and the Governments themselves.
The terms of reference of this Commission should include any proposals, from Her Majesty's Government or from any other quarter in Northern Ireland, here, or elsewhere, and should also include—following up what I said earlier—the examination of what would be involved in agreeing on the constitution of a united Ireland.
Let us examine it—a constitution of a united Ireland, to be reached by agreement and requiring ratification by all three Parliaments and with enforceable safeguards for minorities, to come into effect 15 years from the date agreement is reached. Why do we not examine what would be involved—some may want to go into it with utter determination, others may wish to treat it as an exercise—in a constitution of a united Ireland to come into effect 15 years from the date agreement is reached, provided that violence, as a political weapon, comes to an end? It would be a subject for consideration—I am not sure whether this is right—that such a settlement should be deferred by, say, one month beyond the 15 years for every act of violence committed in the name of union after signature and ratification of this agreement.
Such a proviso might have the effect of minimising support or tacit approval by non-violent members of the minority or those who seek a solution by violence. With such a provision, all acts of violence would be seen by all, whatever their views today, to be not advancing but actually retarding the cause of unity of Ireland.
Third, internment would cease as soon as the necessary conditions exist for an improvement in confidence, it being understood that all against whom criminal charges were to be preferred would be subject to normal criminal procedure.
I have heard criticisms that internment was introduced, by a stroke of the pen,


without any constitutional procedures. If all concerned, in both countries, agree that special powers in some form cannot be repealed in the special conditions of Northern Ireland—as they exist today in Southern Ireland and if there were any question of a transition to a united Ireland, there might be special strains which would cause some, at any rate, perhaps as much in the South as in the North, to feel that special powers might be required—then I believe profoundly that any decision to invoke them—and then only in conditions of dire emergency—must require, as is indeed provided in our own legislation, a Declaration of Emergency, ratified by a decision of this House and lapsing automatically unless renewed, 30 days by 30 days, by this House.
No deprivation of personal liberty, in a situation where we may not be able immediately to move to the absolute rule of law, should be in the hands of any individual, even be he a Minister. It should be under the total control of this House, which alone must be able to lay down the conditions in which it is exercised, the rules to be followed, interrogation procedures and everything else. One condition which this House would insist upon would be that such powers would be conferred only when the ordinary processes of law have broken down and are seen to have broken down. Another must be that every individual must be informed of the charge he has to meet and be given the opportunity to meet it, with proper legal support.
An internee I met in Long Kesh told me that he had no idea of the charge against him. I do not know whether that is so, but hon. Members will have seen the article in The Times of Tuesday recording that internment powers in India, in Kenya, in Malaya, in Singapore, in Nkrumah's Ghana and—of importance to this House—in wartime Britain, required the nature of the charge to be notified to the detainee. This was what we provided for even in wartime. Just as the internment powers, even in Rhodesia, requires parliamentary approval of a state of emergency, this House certainly cannot insist on less.
Fourth, any constitutional agreement about a United Ireland submitted for ratification by the three Parliaments, would have to include full legal and other

safeguards for the rights of minorities, be those minorities in North or South. Examination should be given to alternative forms of a Federal constitution, be that based on a dual system or on the four historic Irish provinces, or to a system of meaningful devolution. It should be devised in such a manner as to encourage the best of the Northern Irish political leaders of all parties, who, I believe, need not fear comparison South of the border or anywhere else, including this House, to seek to exercise their political abilities on an all-Ireland stage.
The agreement would have to provide, whether by a blocking vote mechanism or other means, constitutional guarantees to ensure protection for minorities against any change in the entrenched clauses dealing with the basic constitutional issues, without their agreement. These are problems of which we have had some familiarity in other contexts.
Fifth, the agreement should be further enshrined in an international convention entered into by the two sovereign powers concerned, with provision for binding arbitration by the International Court or other agreed appropriate tribunal.
Sixth, if progress were made in the freely constituted Constitutional Commission, with the last word held by the three Parliaments, the Irish Republic should undertake to seek as a Republic, membership of the Commonwealth, recognising the Queen as head of that Commonwealth. It has long been my view that, had the Indian formula providing for a sovereign republic to be a member of the Commonwealth been devised in time to affect the Irish settlement, Ireland could well have remained within the Commonwealth. I recognise the great difficulty this would present to Irish leaders, having regard to history; but more than at any time in Irish history, we have to regard the struggle of the past as an inspiration for the future, not an impediment to securing a peaceful future so different from that past.
Seventh, for a long period of years—and this is why I have made the earlier proposal—to be specified in the constitutional settlement, any oath of allegiance for those who so chose, could be in the form of allegiance to the constitution of the new Ireland, and to the Queen as head of the Commonwealth.
Eighth, from the moment of agreement, if one could be freely reached, on the Irish settlement, the Government of the Irish Republic would give a solemn undertaking, incorporated in the agreement, not when it comes into effect, but now, to use all appropriate powers, and all the energy, forces and means at its command to pursue and extirpate terrorist organisations, operating from, located in, or supported from Irish soil. It would further undertake, jointly with the British Armed Forces, and other security services, to engage, as the situation required, in all necessary operations of Border patrols and other means of Border control to prevent terrorist infiltration into the North.
Ninth, the Government should give a binding undertaking to maintain, for the whole 15 year period of transition, and thereafter if the Sovereign power so agreed, sufficient military forces to safeguard law and order and eliminate violence. I would see no reason why they should not remain, if the Government of a united Ireland saw fit, for a further five or 10 years, that is, for up to a quarter of a century from the date of these negotiations.
To emphasise Britain's determination in this regard, new buildings and facilities of a permanent character should be consrtucted, not so much a garrison as a military town, including married quarters and training facilities, so that there would be a large force of troops, both for training and available for operations. The idea would be a peacetime establishment similar to Aldershot or Catterick, so as to avoid the drama and sensation of the entry of troops for riot or subversive situations. The building and maintenance would provide much-needed employment.
Tenth, during the transitional period the Government should assume full Ministerial responsibility for all aspects of security, military and police, with the maximum devolution I have suggested to the police authority. Arrangements would be made for reports to be made by United Kingdom Ministers to the Parliament of Stormont, whether through a Standing Committee or direct to Parliament itself.
Eleventh, in the interim period, the Stormont Government should include representatives of minority views, pro-

vided that each such Minister made clear his loyal acceptance of the interim constitution, in addition to his acceptance of the long-term settlement set out in the agreement.
Twelfth, the constitution of the new Ireland would include the Human Rights Provision of the Downing Street Declaration, together with adequate machinery for its enforcement.
Thirteenth—and here we come to the theocratic problem—the constitution would further provide for changes in the 1937 Irish Constitution necessary to give assurance that there would be no constitutional impediment to the creation of a National Health Service on the British model; to a social security system not less eligible than that now enjoyed by the citizens of Northern Ireland; that all censorship or prohibition of books or the importation of newspapers would be removed; that the right would be asserted to legislate in the field of personal liberties, for example, in family planning, abortion and other matters, in accordance with British practices, and provision made to place legislation on all these matters on the British model, on the Statute Book during the transitional period.
Fourteenth, it should also provide for a dual and equal system of education on the lines of the English and Scottish models, with such limited changes as are required for the needs of a united Ireland.
Fifteenth and finally, social service provisions should be progressively assimilated to the British System to guarantee to Northern Ireland citizens the rights they have enjoyed within the United Kingdom. The task of harmonising the Irish system of social security with the British should begin with the signature of the Constitutional Agreement, having regard to wage levels and other matters affecting the standard of living in both countries. Five years after signature of the Agreement the first of 10 annual increments in Irish social benefits would begin, assisted by an injection of British financial aid, total harmonisation being effective simultaneously with the entry into force of the long-term constitutional provisions of the Agreement and Treaty, and the achievement of a united Ireland.
Perhaps I could say this to the Prime Minister, whom I have already thanked—we know that it has been difficult for him to be here and we all understand


that he has to honour a long-standing engagement. I hope that the Prime Minister and the Government will give careful consideration to these proposals I have put forward and that they will be ready in any case to agree to my suggestion of inter-party talks in this House as a preliminary to similar talks between all the main parties in Westminster and Stormont, leading then, if agreement can be reached, to consideration of the wider proposals I have outlined, or of any other alternative proposals which the Government or anyone else may table.
No one underrates the immensity of the task of reconcilation but still less will anyone underrate the alternative to reconciliation in terms of bitterness and violence. No one here underrates the primary duty, for Northern Ireland's Protestants, for Northern Ireland's Catholics, of helping them, together, to find security for each, and so to provide the certainty, and the hope, so tragically lacking today, which will enable each family, of whatever faith, to plan and to live its own life in the way it has the right to choose.

5.32 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence (Lord Balniel): The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), in opening the debate, has spoken of one of the greatest problems facing the country and rightly emphasised the sombre picture where hate and fear are so often the dominant sentiments in society. He has rightly spoken of the immensity of the task of reconciliation, and I am glad to follow him. I hope that he will not think it presumptuous of me to say that the whole House has listened to his speech with profound interest and has regarded its theme and the suggestions he made as being constructive and put forward in a most helpful manner.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will speak on Monday and so be enabled not only to deploy the Government's views but also to take into account the arguments and suggestions which have been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. I can assure him at this stage that we shall give them the most careful consideration. The value of his speech lies not only in the suggestions which have been put forward but also in the broad measure of agreement

which clearly exists between the two parties.
There was no suggestion that the troops should be withdrawn; there was an acceptance of the fact that military measures are necessary before a political solution can be implemented. There is also the acceptance, whatever his views might have been in the past, that internment, while immensely distasteful to every hon. Member, has a crucial importance in the short term in putting down violence. There is agreement that there is no departure from the constitutional position as set out in the Downing Street Declaration. There is agreement between the parties that there should be no proposal for direct rule except in the last resort, when the whole fabric of society in Northern Ireland has broken down.
There is agreement between the parties that there should be no going back on the Hunt recommendations and there is agreement that the Border should not be changed by violence. There is agreement that all citizens of Northern Ireland, to whatever community they belong, should be treated equally and have equal opportunities in society. It is on this basis that we begin the debate, with a broad measure of agreement, with the suggestions put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, which we shall consider most carefully and on which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will comment on Monday.
I believe that it would be of greatest help to the House if I tried to give some appraisal of the security situation in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend and I have repeatedly made clear that military measures alone cannot solve the underlying problems of Northern Ireland.
As was said in the Gracious Speech, the Government remain determined to continue their efforts to establish political conditions in Northern Ireland which ensure for the communities there an active, permanent and guaranteed rôle in the life and public affairs of the Province. But equally prominent in the Gracious Speech was the Government's determination that violence in Northern Ireland shall be brought to an end.
This does not mean that the search for political advance must await the end of the terrorist campaign. But no political


solution can be implemented until the campaign has been curbed—until the terror has been lifted.
Those men of the I.R.A. who seek to gain their ends by terror have certainly taken a heavy toll of life-38 regular soldiers; two Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers; 11 policemen of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—all killed in the past year. In the appalling catalogue of crime one must include those who are not covered by the statistics, those many others who have been wounded. All too often on my desk in the daily reports from the military forces in Northern Ireland I read, "Private, bullet wound, lower spine, permanently paralysed from the waist down", or "Corporal, bullet wound, in lung and hip, paralysed right leg, probably permanently". The tragedy is not something which can be measured in statistics; it is something that will remain with many of the soldiers for the rest of their lives.
These most certainly were men of the security forces—prepared in the course of duty to risk their lives in the interests of the community. But there are many others—innocent civilians—who even in the eyes of the I.R.A. have been guilty of no more than that they worked at a particular office, drank at a particular pub or even travelled on a particular bus. It is just their sad, bad luck in the eyes of the I.R.A. that they had to be gunned down or blasted by bombs.
I do not think that in this House I need say a word more about the immeasurable sadness they have brought to the people of Ireland—except to quote the words of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. He said:
The activities of the I.R.A., especially their indiscriminate bombing causing the loss of innocent lives, have not only alienated sympathy, widely held abroad for the deprived minority in the North, but could set the attainment of national unity back for many, many years. It is difficult to believe that the evil minds that plan these activities can be motivated by the ideal of the unification of ' our people and our country'.
I think it unwise to speculate as to when the situation will be back to normal—where in Belfast and Londonderry people can walk and live in peace and tranquillity. I fear that no doubt we shall see more shooting, more horror. I

have no doubt that yet more degraded forms of terror will be seen—I am bound to say, though, that it is a long time since the Army last found it necessary to guard our wounded in hospitals against further attacks by gunmen.
But the I.R.A. is not attaining any of its major objectives. It hoped that the security forces would retaliate with uncontrolled violence and repression. But the forces have remained calm and disciplined. It hoped to provoke the Protestants into taking the law into their own hands. Again it is not succeeding. It hoped that this country would despair—and sickened with horror would withdraw the Army—and it hoped for Civil War.
But it has miscalculated. The determination of the Government is that British forces will stay in Northern Ireland in such strength and for as long as they are needed to restore and maintain law and order. This is the determination of the Government and has been underscored by the Leader of the Opposition in his speech today.
They will work with the minimum of force; with complete impartiality between the communities but steadily and inexorably their efficiency is increasing; their knowledge and information is growing; and they will win the fight against the terrorist.
The I.R.A. has taken a very hard knock indeed. And the House does not have to take my words on this. Cathal Goulding, chief of staff of the official I.R.A., has been reported by the Press only in the last few days as saying that
We
—that is, he and the Provisionals whom he blames for their terror campaign—
we are both suffering from internment and military occupation. Whereas in the beginning internment was a failure, gradually but surely more people in both movements are being arrested every day. Whether combined or individually, we are not going to win in the military sense. They will suppress the armed revolutionary. He will be defeated.
And he is right. They will be defeated. They are in the process of being defeated at the moment.
The information at the disposal of the security forces is growing—leading to more seizures of arms; more arrests of wanted persons. The pattern of arrests


of wanted men has risen from 28 in the first week of October; 40 in the next week; 53 in the next week; 73 in the next week and 41 in the following week—and now to rather over 100 a week so far this month. Two days ago, for instance, 32 wanted men were arrested.
Just as the arrests of wanted men have increased, so it has been followed by a steady increase in the discovery of arms. This year the security forces have discovered in Northern Ireland 458 guns, of various types. They have found 112,000 rounds of ammunition and 1¼ tons of explosives. There was also the big haul in Amsterdam.
The layman's mind boggles with these kind of statistics—when one pound of gelignite is enough to kill a roomful of people. In fact, we have found enough arms to equip roughly a battalion of troops.
The usual shelter for a gunman is a crowd of women or children—and the soldiers have to take incredibly dangerous risks to try and ensure that no innocent people are hurt. The troops act very carefully—but they act extremely toughly against the terrorists themselves. They are making inroads into the strength and reserves of the I.R.A. The figures I have given illustrate this point.
The House may also wish to be aware of the recent figures for terrorist acts. The average number of shooting incidents a week in September and October was about 70. There were 99 in the last week of October. Since then, in successive weeks, there have been 75, 69 and 36. The explosions continued but at a reduced rate. There were 34 in the week ending 27th October; in the following week there were 50; in the next two weeks there were 23 and 21.
Nevertheless, the present rate of incidents is appallingly high. Every act of terrorism is one too many. Very small numbers of terrorists can wreak tremendous havoc. As a country we must not anticipate an easy or quick elimination of the campaign. A vital factor is the Army's ability to arrest wanted men and to locate weapons. This flows directly from improving intelligence.
We debated one aspect of this subject last week and it was the task of the Compton Committee to establish the facts. It did not have the incredibly difficult

task of deciding what methods can be morally justified in balancing the intensity of interrogating people strongly suspected of being deeply implicated in terrorism, against the desperate need to save lives and obtain up-to-date intelligence. This is an extremely difficult judgment for any Government to make and our decision to refer this matter to a Committee of Privy Councillors, under the chairmanship of an eminent judge—Lord Parker, has commanded a large measure of general agreement in the House as being the most constructive step we can take.
One particularly sad feature of recent weeks is that the I.R.A. has stepped up its attacks on unarmed police in the R.U.C. Its purpose is to undermine the morale and steadfastness of the police force and to achieve a complete breakdown of law and order. These policemen have had to face attacks upon themselves, their police stations and, even worse, on their homes and families.
They, the police force, welcomed the Hunt Report and the idea of developing a basically unarmed force. But the situation has changed. We all sympathise with the view of the senior policeman who said the other day:
Most of us were quite happy to lose our guns because we realised this would help us to hang on to the civilian role. But unfortunately the present terror campaign against the R.U.C. makes the idea of an ordinary British type police force impossible. You cannot expect a man to walk about the streets unarmed when he knows he is a target for dozens of gunmen.
It has been necessary for policemen in certain areas to carry arms for much of the time when they are away from their stations on duty. The R.U.C. Reserve is also to be armed when on similar duties.
We have also agreed to a number of measures, announced on 12th November by my right hon. Friend, for the better protection of police stations, many of which include accommodation for policemen's families.

Mr. F. A. Burden: Will my hon. Friend tell us what improvements in accommodation facilities are being carried out for our troops in Northern Ireland, in view of the fact that obviously they will be there for a considerable time?

Lord Balniel: Perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not deal with that


point at the moment. I refer my hon. Friend to an answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army at Question Time today, and I have no doubt that he will try and answer the question more specifically, if necessary.
Reverting to the protection of the police, the Army will guard as many stations as the operational situation and the regular and U.D.R. manpower in Northern Ireland will permit. To guard the remainder, the police have been provided with automatic weapons. These stations will also be covered by Army patrols. These are all very necessary measures in the current situation. I am sure the House will agree that it is right to offer the police some measure of self-protection against the type of attacks which have been made against them.
The Army will continue to help on police patrols giving cover where it can. But this cannot always be available without diverting troops from other tasks where they can be pursuing a more active initiative in combating terrorism. However, I echo the words of the Leader of the Opposition. There is no suggestion of reverting to the situation which existed prior to the Hunt Report.
It would be wrong of me to let this occasion pass without a brief reference and tribute to the Ulster Defence Regiment, although my hon. Friend will deal with it later in the debate. It is increasing significantly in strength. The force has been in the forefront of the campaign and has suffered casualties, with two men killed. The members of the U.D.R. continue to make a most useful and effective contribution to the security forces.
Much public attention in recent weeks has focussed on the Border. It is unfortunately the case that the members of the I.R.A. use the territory of the Republic—even though it is an illegal organisation there—for many purposes. They use it for training, as a sanctuary when they know they are wanted in Northern Ireland, and as a supply route for arms and explosives. Some control of the Border is therefore well worth while.
Complete control by sealing the Border is impracticable. It is over 300 miles long, and there are in addition many places where a small boat could

readily land in Northern Ireland. The forces that would be needed to close off terrorist traffic along the entire length of the Border are quite prohibitive. Even partial measures mean a great deal of inconvenience for the peaceful traffic which makes the great bulk of crossings each day, and especially for considerable numbers of local people both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic whose everyday life straddles the Border.
However, the Government do not intend to allow I.R.A. members to move to and fro just as they please and without hindrance. We cannot stop determined men slipping across the Border on foot, perhaps carrying small loads. But we can make it very much more difficult for them to drive across freely.
It is with this in mind that a considerable number of unapproved crossings have been blocked. Some may argue that this action at most inconveniences the I.R.A. But it should not be seen as an isolated military measure. It is part of a sequence of means steadily tightening the grip on the I.R.A., and it makes it possible to control traffic on the remaining roads much more tightly.
The general picture is one in which we see military efficiency increasing. Steadily and inexorably we see a tighter grip being fastened on terrorism. But the picture is also one in which we cannot expect any immediate and sudden end to terrorist activity and in which we as a country have to brace ourselves for yet further outrage.
Throughout the weeks and months which lie ahead, the Government will pursue their dual task of ending and rooting out violence and continuing with our efforts to establish conditions where all sectors of the Northern Ireland community have a permanent, active and cultured life in their country.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: When I heard the opening of this debate, although I had intended to speak, temporarily I changed my mind because some of the comments that I wished to make were not entirely in keeping with the very constructive way in which the debate had begun. However, the few comments that I wish to make may best be made at this stage, immediately following the speech of the


Minister of State and his remarks about the rôle of the Army.
It is appropriate that the debate should begin in this very serious, constructive and responsible manner. There can be no Member of this House who does not feel intense shame about what has happened in Northern Ireland. Whenever one becomes conscious of the fact that citizens of this country cannot walk on the streets of their towns without the risk of being shot, that is a cause for shame for us all.
It should be noted in passing that for too many years this House did not live up to its responsibilities in Northern Ireland because it did not allow the affairs of Northern Ireland to be discussed. We should make a mental note that never again will any aspect of the affairs of our country be ruled out of order for discussion in this House. To some extent, we are bearing the consequences of that today.
I find my views on the situation clearly divided. However, I believe that there is a consistency of approach. I support the remark of the Minister that the Army is to be respected for the responsible way in which it has gone about its duties in Northern Ireland. I resent the fact that one can see on television British troops being stoned by school children when they are going about their lawful duties. We are constantly telling ourselves that one of the reasons why those who commit acts against peace in Northern Ireland cannot be prosecuted is that witnesses will not come forward. On our television screens we see youths throwing stones at soldiers. Surely still photographs can be taken of those events, and surely prosecutions can be brought on the basis of them. I dare say that some prosecutions are brought, but I think not many. I should have thought that this was one relatively minor infringement of the law that we ought not to tolerate.
I should also be prepared to see far tougher action on certain other means of keeping the peace in Northern Ireland. Certainly the Border needs to be controlled far more than it has been in the past, while not being closed. It is ludicrous to attempt to conduct a campaign of this kind with an open border across which those who break the peace can escape.
However, we must not allow our feelings on these kinds of point to affect our views about the very serious matters which came to light last week. In making my points about the Compton Report, I beg the Minister to believe that I am not motivated by any opposition to the Army as such but by a firm belief that the Army can do its job in Northern Ireland and will be permitted to do its job only in the way in which we are accustomed to see judicial proceedings conducted in this country.
I have had the feeling during the last week that the country, and especially this House, has been anaesthetised, and has not recognised the facts set out in the Compton Report. I do not believe that the Compton Report was a whitewash in any proper sense of the word, but I do think that the wording of the Report, and the way in which the clearly set out facts are embedded in a lot of other material, has led people not quite to recognise the gravity of what is therein stated.
This afternoon I asked the Minister about the legality of what was done, and he asserted that in his opinion standing people up against a wall, hooding them, inflicting noise on them and subjecting them to semi-starvation were not illegal acts. That may be his opinion, and though I may have an opposite opinion, the fact is that there is here an objective matter to be tested. One cannot allow a situation to continue in which British troops, their officers and the Ministers who are responsible for what they do—I leave aside the Ulster Constabulary—may have been responsible for conspiring to commit a breach of the law. We must get that matter clarified.
If it is the case that British Ministers are implicated in that responsibility, it follows, according to the traditions of this country, that the senior Minister responsible would have to resign. That must be looked into, and we shall all have read with interest the second leader in The Times of today. The Times has finally awakened to the point, as I think many people are beginning to do, and I think that we must settle the issue, one way or the other.
I hope that in reading the Compton Report hon. Members will bring to it some degree of worldly wisdom, because anyone who has spent a day or a night


in a guardroom, on whichever side of the bars, must have read some paragraphs in the Report with amusement, qualified only by the seriousness of the matter in hand. When it is said that the men who were stood against the wall had their hands rubbed by their guards to restore the circulation to their hands, one cannot fail to wonder whether that was a totally accurate representation of what occurred.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: A gentle massage.

Mr. Cunningham: As my hon. Friend says, it was a gentle massage. That is what was represented as having occurred. I do not suppose that any hon. Member believes that that kind of incident happens in any legal or gentle manner.
There are many other passages in the Report about which the same comment could be made, but I do not want to dwell on those allegations made to the Committee which were thought to be disproved by the Committee, or those upon which the Committee could take no decision one way or the other.
If we consider the four activities which the Committee found to have taken place in respect of a number of men, we realise that there is enormous cause for concern. I do not want to use the word "torture" because, on the more severe side of what happened, there are gradations of torture almost to infinity. But it was torture, or very mild torture, and the House of Commons does not tolerate torture, however mild. It always starts by being mild, but it will not remain so.
It has been said that the purpose of the Committee of Privy Councillors is to try to find a line between activities which are acceptable to us and activities which are not. I suggest that that line could be found at two clearly differentiated places. First, there is the line which is found in this country for normal purposes, and that line, basically, is the line between asking for information, and going on asking for information for what I might call a normal working day, with breaks for meals, and so on. That is the line which we apply in this country.
Then there is the line which would divide some form of, shall we say, pressure from other forms of pressure. If the Committee tries to find the second

line, and even if it tries to find that second line on the gentle side of the activities which were found by the Compton Report to have taken place, I suggest that we are opening a sluice gate which we shall never manage to close.
Let me put the point like this. If the Privy Councillors are to try to define that second line, will they say that it is all right to stand a man up against the wall and use physical force to keep him there—because he will not stand there voluntarily—half starve him, subject him to noise, and so on, while that is going on? Will they say that it is all right to do that for 20 hours, but not for 25? Will they say that it is all right to do that to a man, but not to a woman? Will they say that that can be done to a woman, but not to a pregnant woman? Where is the line to be drawn which is not only capable of being written down in rules but which is capable of being defended in morality and logic?
Can anyone really believe that guards, when they have a man up against the wall, will think that his feet are too far apart and he is a bit uncomfortable and will say, "He is too uncomfortable. We had better put his feet closer together. He will give us the information quickly if we leave him like that"? It is nonsense. If someone is going in for torture, he has to keep on with it, in the logic of the thing.
It is not possible to have gentle torture. Gentle torture is the only thing which the House of Commons would be prepared to accept, but it cannot accept even that. The dilemma is that if someone is in the business of forcing information out of people, he has to apply a little pressure. He will not get his information otherwise, and if he applies too much pressure he offends the feelings of 99 per cent. of the hon. Members of this House.
I make no apology for speaking in terms of torture, because that is what the Compton Report found. I do not believe that it is right to set up a Committee of Privy Councillors and suggest that their job is to find a line between some form of ill-treatment which would be bearable, and others which would not. That line can never be found. If it can be defined in words, it can never be defended in morality or in logic.
When these allegations were found to have been proved to the extent that they


were, the right thing was for the House to condemn them outright, for Ministers to have done so, and for Ministers to have taken action to prosecute those responsible. And, if Ministers were responsible, for the appropriate Minister to resign. I still hope that that kind of action can be taken.
There is one other point on the dangers of torture which one would have thought it was necessary to make in the House. If one puts a man up against a wall and subjects him to unbearable noise, gives him a diet of one slice of bread every six hours and puts a black hood over his head, as were all done simultaneously and were proved by the Report to have been done, he has something of an incentive to make up some information. He may therefore provide names off the top of his head. In the logic of the situation, one then pulls in the bearers of those names, and stands them up against a wall and half starves them and so on.
I hope that hon. Members have paid attention to the letters from professional lawyers and medical men which have recently been printed in The Times, suggesting not only that, in morality, justice and law, such behaviour is intolerable, but also that it is not effective in getting reliable information. However, one must admit that these methods can produce some reliable information which can help to save lives.
Anyone who takes the line which I am now pressing—I hope that it will wake up the whole House eventually—is saying that we would rather do without some information than gather it on this basis and that we recognise that doing without that information might mean the loss of some innocent lives. We have always been prepared to accept such a loss in this country. Every night, in every police station in the country, the police could adopt these methods. They could save lives, stop burglaries and recover material by the use of these methods—but they do not do so. They are not legally entitled to do so and we would not like it if they tried to do so. It has always been our law and practice. We need now to get back on the rails in Northern Ireland, and it needs to be the practice there, too.
I hope that, when the Minister has considered the matter, he will decide that it is important for some Minister to make

a statement about the legal implications. If the Minister's view is that the actions are not illegal, let him at least make a statement to that effect.
I also hope that the Minister will change his decision not to allow Members of Parliament to see the electronic noise machine which I have asked for permission to see. If ever there comes a time when it is possible to bombard people in British hands with such devices, if Ministers ever say to a Member of Parliament, "No, you cannot see the exact nature of what we do," we have come to a very low ebb indeed. These methods have been called "interrogation in depth". "Depth" is the right word. I hope that when hon. Members consider this coolly and rationally, they will decide that these are methods which no British Parliament can possibly allow to continue.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. John E. Maginnis: I will not follow the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) in his examination in depth of the report which we discussed last week. I should like to turn my attention to what the Leader of the Opposition said in his very long and protracted speech. His summing up of the situation was superb, but his solutions could be described in the words which he used about his previous 12 points—they will be blowing in the wind by this time next week.
We have had Irish Republican Army troubles since even before Northern Ireland was separated from the rest of Ireland. During my lifetime, from the 1920 Act to 1925, there were various stages of I.R.A. activity almost as vicious as what we are seeing today in Belfast, Derry and other places. We had it again in the 1930s, the 1940s and the 1950s, right up to 1962, and we have it again today.
The solution which the right hon. Gentleman has put before the House deserves consideration. I would remind the House that the majority of the one million Protestants living in Northern Ireland will never accept an all-Ireland Republic, although they would accept a united Ireland under Britain. The alternative suggestion put forward, that of a regional solution, would carry more weight than setting up a Commission,


which would spread its wings over 15 years and involve an awful lot of talk with no result.
The situation today is improving. I should like to pay my tribute to the men of the British Army, which is our Army, for their efforts in tracking down the gunmen in Northern Ireland. I know that we could criticise the lack of security in certain areas, but these gaps will be filled in the near future because of the vast improvement in recruitment to the U.D.R. It is only when we have the presence of the Army and the U.D.R. in every area that we shall finally crush the gunmen's efforts to subvert the rightly-elected Government of Stormont.
We have this huge problem of the Border. Up to the moment we have had very little co-operation from the Parliament in Dublin. The powers-that-be here should try hard to impress upon Mr. Lynch that the great bone of contention, the matter which digs very deeply into the hearts and minds of all the Unionists living in Northern Ireland, is that part of the constitution of the Republic which lays claim to Northern Ireland.
It is also asserted by the Provisional I.R.A. that the only way of bringing about a united Ireland is by force. This is entirely false. Men of good will from all sides are today prepared to sit down and do their best to find some solution to the problem. I should like to reiterate what the Leader of the Opposition said: that no political solution should be put forward until the violence has come to an end and the gunmen have been wiped out. Any political solution emanating from this House or anywhere else would only be a sop to the Irish Republican Army.
We must remember that since the formation of Northern Ireland into a division of the country the majority of people in Northern Ireland have consistently stated, in election after election, that they want to remain part of the United Kingdom. The original Unionists, before the country was divided, never wanted it to be divided; they wanted it to remain under Westminster.
The threat of direct rule—" If you do not do what we want you to do, direct rule will be imposed"—has been hanging like a sword of Damocles over the administration at Stormont for the past

two or three years. Direct rule will not solve the problem of Northern Ireland. All that it will do is transfer the troubles from the streets of Belfast to the streets of London, from Stormont to Westminster.
I hope that anyone who suggests direct rule as a solution to our problem will have second thoughts. The one thing which the Provisional I.R.A. want is direct rule. Once they get it, they will put on such pressure that even politicians in this House will give them what they want—and that is a united Ireland by force.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I am not always an unqualified admirer of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), my leader, but my admiration for him today was quite unqualified. I thought he made a magnificent and very brave speech. People may be agreeing upstairs at this moment with that. I thought he made a very wise speech with feeling for what is happening in Ireland. It was an imaginatively brave speech, because it is very rash for any man to risk putting forward proposals of the sort that he put forward, a number of which are bound to be shot down, and yet no one in authority will find a political solution unless he has the guts to do that. I therefore pay an unqualified tribute to my leader, particularly because on other occasions I have been somewhat rough in my criticisms of him.
I agree with all that the noble Lord the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said about the magnificent conduct of the Army in terribly wearing circumstances. It is a tribute to the astonishing qualities of the British professional Army that it can maintain its morale in these circumstances—with no leave, not being able to get out, in wretched living conditions and with the eternal fear that a bullet may be fired from any window or corner. Yet, despite the strain on the nerves, not even the most prejudiced person claims that the soldiers have been brutal, have lost their heads, gone berserk or shot anywhere. One wonders how long this situation will last in view of the pressures.
I have taken tremendous interest in the question of an army faced by


guerrillas in occupation. I have written on the subject quite a bit. I came to it when I defended Marshal Manstein, to whom I pay tribute as a great commander and very wise and humane man. I remember when he talked to me about the time that he faced a guerrilla in the Crimea. He said, "One thing you must realise in a guerrilla situation is that you are the side of order and they are the side of disorder and that terror is the instrument of disorder and that once you start, as these Gestapo will start, a rival terror, you are lost. The only way in which we can succeed against the guerrilla is by providing the security that every ordinary man wants. Once he feels that we can protect him he will be on our side. The point at which I knew I had won my conflict with the Crimean guerrillas was when I could arm the villagers for their own defence." However, the Russians returned and there were terrible consequences for the villagers. This was the tragedy of that awful war.
We must be able to provide people with security against the gunmen's vengeance. Until we have provided that security, the gunmen's campaign of terror will be maintained. To a tremendous degree, the Army has restrained itself in providing a rival terror. It has not yet succeeded in providing a system of adequate security for ordinary people who wish for peace and protection against the inroads of the gunmen.
We have not been as good as this before. In the early 1920s, in the days of the Black and Tans, we fell into the error of competitive terror. The situation got completely out of control and we had to make our escape. We came near to that situation in Israel, when troops under great pressure lost their heads. There were rival brutalities and the situation became unmanageable. That has not happened in Northern Ireland.
But the people must still be protected. If we are to provide protection, we must get the necessary information. If we are to protect people against gunmen, we must obtain the information which enables us to identify the gunmen and find their arms and explosives, which otherwise will blow up harmless passers-by in the street and visitors to hotels in an entirely promiscuous attempt to create disorder and misery.
I am not unduly shocked by anything disclosed in the Compton Report. It seems to me unduly squeamish to compare the maiming and crippling, the paralysed backs of children without fathers, and the misery of sweethearts whose lovers have gone as a result of the dreadful damage caused by the bomb and the sniper, with the distressing 48 hours which a detainee may suffer.

Mr. George Cunningham: Will my hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that most people who criticise the actions set out in the Compton Report do not equate the two things but argue that those actions must be legally and morally wrong, even though the terror is far and away worse than those actions.

Mr. Paget: If my hon. Friend will permit me to say so, I greatly admired his speech. I admired its moderation and the humanity which it exhibited. I agree with him that people have not been comparing the two things. I think they should; that is my point. My hon. Friend said that he recognised that to put a limitation on the methods used to obtain information would cost innocent lives but that is a price which must be paid. I do not agree with him. I am not prepared deliberately to sacrifice the innocent lives of passers-by or of our troops. to whom we have given this terrible job to do, in order to save people a very distressing 48 hours. The two things are not comparable.
As I say, I do not feel particularly squeamish about what is disclosed in the Compton Report. But is it effective? That is the test question. I am certain that anything like torture is totally ineffective. The wrong names are given and as a result the wrong people are sought. In the 1920s the Black and Tans simply gave the names of the people they wanted to get rid of. Torture is totally counterproductive, so whatever moral views we may have about it do not make sense. But, again, the simple, "Have a cup of tea and tell us about it" does not work either. We have to have an interrogation in depth. But how does one do this?
In our courts, we have interrogation in depth. We put a chap in the witness box, and that is a hell of an experience. It can be a terrible experience. I, and I am sure you, Mr. Speaker, have known cases of people who have perhaps never


quite recovered from a really formidable cross-examination in court. But it is not a question of putting on that kind of pressure just to get the answers. It is to break down the lies and get a person to the point where his resistance to examination has gone and he begins to spill out the truth. This is the process one is attempting, and this is the process which is accelerated if a man is tired, hungry or, perhaps, frightened. When the information has to be produced quickly, these conditions, which help the cross-examiner and weaken the cross-examined, need to be provided. That is what is meant by cross-examination—examination in depth.
The question of the methods which have been used is for the Privy Councillors. That has to be said. But when we ask our troops in these circumstances to take on this task, and when we say we have to provide protection for the people who will be involved, for the people who will be blown up by these explosives if the chap who is being grilled does not say where they are—when we have to do those things we cannot be too squeamish about making the conditions comfortable for the person whose will is being broken down by the process of cross-examination. That is the whole problem that we are up against. It is the problem which the judge and the Privy Councillors will have to consider.

Mr. George Cunningham: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that if he wants to apply these methods, which are quite unknown to the law of this country, Parliament must have the guts to pass legislation to allow this kind of action and cannot tolerate it happening without legislative authority and, thus, contrary to the law?

Mr. Paget: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not wish to prolong the debate by going into a legal argument on it, but my hon. Friend should look at the terms of the Special Powers Act. I think he would find that these things fall within it. Perhaps we shall have a Law Officer to explain it. I am certainly not a law officer of the Government. I am merely discussing what I feel should

be done in this overwhelming task of the Army not to create terror itself but to provide protection, which alone can bring people to its assistance.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Julian Critchley: I shall be very brief. I want to concentrate on one aspect only of Ulster, the coverage of the crisis in Ulster by radio and television, and by the B.B.C. in particular.
I begin by referring to Lord Hill's apologia, which we heard a day or two ago. It is the seventh apology this year that the B.B.C. has made to the public. The sixth was made by Mr. Huw Wheldon, when he found himself on a religious broadcast last Sunday. He confessed that in his view Mr. Alan Hart's interview with Mr. Brian Faulkner a week ago on "Panorama" was a mistake and that Mr. Hart had gone, as he said, "over the top". But Lord Hill, in his statement in response to the meeting he had with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, included a sentence in which he said that those who believe in censorship in television will also support censorship in newspapers. That is, clearly, not the case.
First, except for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell), there is not one hon. Member on this side of the House who has advocated the censorship of what happens on "the box" in Ulster. Secondly, even if we had advocated censorship, it does not follow from that that we would also advocate the censorship of newspaper articles. Third, that sentence from Lord Hill makes no distinction between the effect of newspaper reporting, on the one hand, and the effect of television on the other, upon a situation or a crisis.
Those of us who have had cause to complain about the B.B.C. in particular in Northern Ireland have suggested that what should happen is that the instant interview of a soldier, gunman or passerby should be banned. We suggest that the instant interview should go because we feel that it is not a device used to find the truth, which is what some reporters will say in justification. It is not a device to find the truth. How could it be, in the circumstances of some emergency in the streets? It is a means to provide entertainment for the British


public. If we wish to find the truth about an incident in the streets of Bog-side or Ballymurphy, it can be discovered by a newspaper or television journalist who is prepared to take his time, to look to his sources, and then, after a lapse of time, to come to a considered judgment. But to add to an Army patrol a camera, whether belonging to the B.B.C. or an independent television company, which is looking over its shoulder when it is in action is to place a burden upon the Army which goes far beyond the need to show the people in this country what is happening in Northern Ireland.
When one suggests that the instant interview should be dropped, many people in broadcasting—Lord Hill is no exception—immediately raise the cry that this is censorship, oblivious to the fact that earlier this year, at the request of Stormont and of the Home Office, the B.B.C. and the independent television companies themselves banned live coverage of intercommunal strife on the streets of Belfast. They banned it because of the politicians' suggestion to the broadcasting authorities that if they showed live television of a riot at the end of a street the inevitable consequence would be that people left their milky drinks or their Guinness, or whatever it was, and went out and joined in.
What is sad is that it was not the broadcasting authorities themselves that came to this very obvious conclusion, but that they had to be nudged into it by the politicians. All that some of us are trying to do is to persuade the television authorities to act in an equally responsible manner with regard to the instant interview in Northern Ireland, as they were prepared to act earlier this year to stop the live film coverage of inter-communal strife.
To claim that this is censorship reveals on the part of the B.B.C. no more than a feeling of being under siege. If the B.B.C. is under siege, it is because of several anxieties which we all have about certain aspects of its behaviour, whether it be sex, which Mrs. Mary Whitehouse has made her own, or triviality or violence or distortion or bias. There is any number of anxieties which many people feel about the condition of television.
The feeling that we have not altogether seen a fair picture of what is happening

in Ulster must be seen in the context of the wider disenchantment which many of us have with the conduct of the B.B.C. itself.
If the B.B.C. is under fire in part because of its Ulster coverage, the other war which is being fought is not between the B.B.C. and its critics. The real war is being fought within the Corporation itself between the management of the B.B.C. and those of its producers, editors and performers who were licensed by Sir Hugh Carleton Greene to say precisely what they wished to say on any given issue.
It is the ambition of a journalist working at the B.B.C. to be able to express an opinion, in the same way as I as a journalist would be able to express an opinion in a newspaper. But there are vitally important differences. First, the B.B.C. is obliged by its charter to be fair and impartial and not to take an editorial view. Secondly, the B.B.C. enjoys a monopoly. For as long as it enjoys a monopoly, it becomes the responsibility of management within the Corporation to ensure that any desire on the part of the staff to editorialise is curbed.
I wish Lord Hill success in his attempts to reform and strengthen the management side of the B.B.C., but he must not be surprised if many of us on both sides of the House are prepared to express the anxieties that many of our constituents feel, not just about "the box" in generally, but more particularly, in terms of this debate, about the way in which Ulster has been treated.
I do not advocate that there should not be equal time for the Catholic and for the Protestant. Certainly there should be fair reporting as between the moderates of both sides. However, I do not think that there is any room in the coverage of the B.B.C. for fair reporting or equal shares, as it were, between the I.R.A. and the Army.
There is among my constituents at Aldershot, many of whom are soldiers' wives, tremendous anxiety at watching what they see every night on television, because they fear that their husbands might be involved, and anger at what they consider to be unfair reporting. As we are in the House most evenings until late at night it is difficult for us to watch all


the television we would like. I am certain that sometimes it is six of one and half a dozen of the other, but the B.B.C. would be well advised, assuming that the anxieties that exist have some foundation, at least to go as far as to advise its staff in Ulster to ban the instant interview of the soldier on duty, just as. at the prompting of politicians, the B.B.C. banned live film coverage of intercommunal strife in the streets of Belfast, for the obvious reason that this served only to advertise what was happening.

6.44 p.m.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: The hon. Member for Islington, South West (Mr. George Cunningham) and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) discussed at some length and with widely differing viewpoints the question of internment.
The hon. and learned Gentleman, having congratulated his leader upon his courage, thereupon himself showed considerable courage, because he put into words the feeling of what might be called the peaceable man-in-the-street in Ulster, and the feeling of the policeman's widow and others who had suffered from I.R.A. violence—the fact that they cannot understand how the House of Commons could be squeamish, to use the hon. and learned Gentleman's word, about the treatment of internees. However, I am somewhat between the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Islington, South-West, in that I think that in a situation where violence and brutality are swamping humanity there is something to be said for keeping aloft the banner of humanity and keeping it high.
Thus my position on internment—I will not argue it at great length, because we had a debate upon it and no doubt the question will be argued again on Monday—is now very near to that of the leader in The Times today. The proper principle to be applied at present, as The Times put it at the end of that leader, is:
In our view it is absolutely necessary to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland by imprisonment without trial. We do not believe that this harsh but necessary policy can be maintained with public support, unless the legal and administrative safeguards provided are rigorously adhered to.

That is my own position on internment, and I should be very happy to see whatever change is made in that.
I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Member for Northampton that, whatever else happens, intelligence is vital in the battle. It is the key. It is the reason why the battle is now being won. If the gleaning of intelligence is relaxed in any way, one is moving to a position where the battle could be lost.
I am sorry that the Leader of the Opposition is not now here, but I understand precisely the reason for it. I want to comment upon his remarkable speech. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the right hon. Gentleman's speech was so well heralded that we had expected something disappointing, but we heard a massive speech from him this afternoon. The early part of the speech showed a remarkable grasp of the situation for the short period the right hon. Gentleman was there. I do not greatly dissent from his analysis of the situation.
One thing which the Leader of the Opposition may have under-rated, and which became apparent during the course of his proposals towards the end of his speech, was the long-standing historic desire of the Ulster Loyalist to remain British. This underlying desire, which the right hon. Gentleman has underestimated, makes the proposals he made at the end of his speech sound, to put it kindly, a shade idealistic. None the less, It is proper, in the spirit of conciliation, to say that whatever proposition is put forward in the present situation, when it is clearly put forward with sincerity and thought, will be considered as objectively as possible.
Perhaps the best service that I can render the House at this moment, as the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in a sense raised the issue, is once again to go back to the fundamental reasons why the Ulsterman believes in the Union and re-state them for the record.
Going no further back in history than the Downing Street Declaration, one would have thought that its first two clauses and the sixth were the end of the matter, that the agreement between the two parties on which the bipartisan policy was based, the principle that Northern Ireland shall not cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the


consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and so on, was sacrosanct because of the pledges of the two parties. But there has been a considerable movement from that position within the Labour Party. The Leader of the Opposition tonight reaffirmed the pledge, and he has stood by it. But there is a large section of his party which does not subscribe to that and has always been consistent about it. No one quarrels about that, but it has been joined recently by the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart), who was a member of the Government which was a party to that Declaration.
Therefore, it is necessary once again to underline the reasons why the majority in Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) has said, have in repeated elections decided that they wished to remain British. First, there is the long argument of history. I can understand the Leader of the Opposition's pleasure that people now talk about the Downing Street Declaration rather than the Battle of the Boyne. That is good, but people go back to the Downing Street Declaration because it is the up-to-date version of the constitution upon which the people of Northern Ireland depend. Anything that would look like a movement from that raises the most profound fear.
The reasons for the fear are not always recognised by people who would wish for a united Ireland as such. There is a tendency to look at geography rather than people, and that is a mistake in the case of Ireland. One looks at Ireland and sees an island surrounded by water, and therefore thinks that the people on it must be the same. They are not. We talk in Ulster about two communities. There are two communities, of widely different ethnic and historic origins.
I prefer to speak of the Loyalist in Ulster rather than the Protestant, because the religious division is not always precisely the same as the political division, although it is one of the tragedies of history that religion has become the badge of what is an ethnic, cultural and historic difference. There is the long tradition of being British. The Ulster Loyalist has been British as long as anyone in the House has been British in his ancestry. The idea of becoming anything but British is unthinkable, just as it would

be unthinkable for any hon. Member suddenly to cease to call himself British. Any political solution based upon the concept that an Ulster Loyalist should cease to think of himself as British is unthinkable, and would be resisted literally to the death. Any political solution considered in those terms is doomed from the very beginning, though that does not mean that we should not honestly consider propositions put forward. That is the historic reason.
The second reason for the maintenance of the Union, which the Leader of the Opposition dismissed a trifle airily, is the fear of the Ulster Protestant of the clerical nature of society south of the Border. The right hon. Gentleman said that no doubt it would be possible as a result of talks and conferences to induce the authorities in the Irish Republic to remove the kind of influences which have prevented them from having modern legislation on contraception, divorce, censorship, health services and so on. But can anyone imagine the difficulties involved in making such changes? Can anyone imagine the problems in education? Can anyone imagine a situation in which the authorities in the Irish Republic could move to a system of education which would appeal in the very slightest to the Ulster Protestant?
I cannot put the fear in connection with education better than an article in Tribune, which is not one of my pet forms of reading. It said:
There have been other glimpses, and now we have the latest example, the move towards comprehensives. Initially the reform was aimed at creating community schools by amalgamating local authority, denominational and other secondary institutions. Labour welcome the proposals, the hierarchy criticised them. Then began the closed discussions with interested parties that typifies Ireland.
The result appears to be victory for the hierarchy. The reworked proposals now vest ownership of the schools in trustees, and a clear majority of the trustees are to be nominated by the bishops.
That may very well be a system of education which suits the Republic of Ireland, but it immediately raises the kind of fear in the minds of people in Ulster that is almost ineradicable and would take years and years to bring to an end.
There are the economic reasons for the maintenance of the union, which I need not go into at great length. The best evidence I can give on them is simply


to quote Mr. Sean MacBride, who has been a Minister in Eire and is leader of the Republican Party now. A report of a speech by him said:
Before any ' real progress' could be made regarding 'partition' … they must face the reality that unless and until the established economic and social security conditions in Eire at least approximated those in Northern Ireland they could not hope to arouse the enthusiasm of even their own people in Northern Ireland for the ending of 'partition'. …
The old-age pensioner in Eire got 12s. 6d. a week at the age of 70 when he or she became completely destitute, whereas under the new social scheme in Northern Ireland a man got 26s. a week at the age of 65 and a woman at the age of 60. …
The marriage rate of Northern Ireland was higher than Eire's, the birth rate over the past ten years was also higher, while on the other hand the death rate in the South was higher than in Northern Ireland. Their tuberculosis mortality and infantile mortality rates were higher than in Northern Ireland, yet it was the same climate, people, and soil. In Northern Ireland 257 persons were supported per square mile, whereas they were only supporting 112 persons per square mile.
Those are not my words. It is almost unnecessary to quote figures to show the difference in the economic base and to illustrate the economic argument for the Union. It is there. It is indisputable.
In recent times another argument for the maintenance of the union with Great Britain has been added; namely, the instability now prevailing in the Irish Republic. Again I use but one quotation, this time from Mr. Cosgrave, the Leader of the Opposition in the Dail. This is what he said on 29th October last:
I have good grounds for believing that we in the Republic have now come perilously close to political anarchy and chaos. The illegal armies have become so active, their drilling and other activities so notorious up and down the country, that the one lawful army of the State appears to have been upstaged by them.
That does not present a very attractive proposition. I do not believe that anyone fully realises the state of instability prevailing now in Ireland, North and South. One is apt to say, "If only Mr. Lynch's Government would do this or that …". The plain fact, which everyone can see, is that Mr. Lynch's Government cannot do this or that. Violence in Irish life has long been a fact of history. It has always been near the surface. The violent solution all through history—and recent his-

tory at that—has always been a solution to be seized upon. We are coming back to that situation in the whole island.
For that reason, anyone of any responsibility must seek, between men of good will, men who believe in civilised methods rather than methods of violence, to see whether there is any common ground. In fact, there is a good deal of common ground. One of the great services which the Leader of the Opposition did, and did with great courage—I accept what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton said—was to point to the fact that in this House of Commons there is considerable unity of approach. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said, we have a tremendous amount of common ground.
There is still a bipartisan policy. This ought to be retained, if at all possible, for nothing would be worse for Ireland, North and South, than if it were to become the plaything of party-political activity in this country, nothing would be worse for the British political system, and nothing would lead to more trouble. Therefore, all people of good will should try to retain that bipartisan approach if they can.
When one is talking in terms of what should be done about the relationship of Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom, about its relationship to the Irish Republic, and about the relationship of the Irish Republic to this country, it is easy to fall into the habit of thinking that we are talking about separate sovereign States. We are not. This is not altogether appreciated by everyone. The great realities of power in the British islands, power over the conduct of foreign affairs, power over defence, power over broad economic policies, and monetary power, all reside here. The Irish Republic, with respect to the main instruments of policies and power, is in no sense an independent country. It is doubtful that the Parliament of the Irish Republic has much more power—indeed, it has probably less—than the Parliament at Stormont. It is probable that the citizens of the Irish Republic at present have less control over their economic welfare than do the citizens of Northern Ireland.
The citizens of Northern Ireland are represented in this House, and they have


some say in whether, for example, it would be right to reflate the economy. The citizens of the Irish Republic have no say in these matters because the policy is determined here. I take, for example, the question of entry into the Common Market. We who represent Northern Ireland here are able to express our constituents' view on the subject. The United Kingdom, rightly or wrongly, decides that it will join the E.E.C. What happens to the Irish Republic? It has no option. It must make application at the same time, and it must go in with the United Kingdom—or stay out with the United Kingdom, as the case might be.
We are not, therefore, talking about relationships between sovereign States. Essentially, we are talking about what form local self-government will take in Ireland, in a part of the British islands. I still think in terms of the old Union of the British Islands. In my view, by far the best hope for the future is the hope that within the context of the Common Market, within the context of the reform of local government in this country, and in the light, say, of the Royal Commission on the Constitution and what may follow from that, there may be more realistic thinking by sensible people South of the Border, and help and understanding North of it, towards a reconstitution of the old Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
I believe that that is more hopeful in the long term than is the view put forward by the Leader of the Opposition today. I thought he was thinking in slightly more separatist terms. He confined himself to talking about a return of the Irish Republic to the Commonwealth. It should be remembered that the Irish Republic was a member of the Commonwealth even during the war, when, again, the separatism was clear and the Irish Republic was neutral while the rest of the Commonwealth was involved in the struggle against Hitler. So that is not in itself sufficient to bring about the kind of unity of hearts and good sense that one wants to see.
I agree with what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition and by other right hon. and hon. Members, that before one can even begin to think in wide and deep terms of that sort one must bring violence, murder and terror to an end.
First, the gun must be taken out of the situation, and then, and only then, can we seek to re-establish confidence between the two communities in Northern Ireland. Such confidence will never be restored while terror goes on. There is a certain chicken and egg argument about this. Some say that confidence will be restored only when the gun is removed, which is my view, while others take the contrary opinion. I agree very strongly with the Leader of the Opposition about this and I thought he was courageous to say so.
It it vital that people should be able to sleep secure in their beds and know that if they support the forces of law and the institutions of the State they will be free from terror, intimidation and murder. Only when that happens can we talk about the restoration of good will between one community and another. Only in those circumstances can feelings of charity and good will, which we all want to see, come to the fore.
I can say on behalf of my colleagues from Ulster that despite what I have said we will seriously consider everything the Leader of the Opposition said. We will endeavour to do so in a spirit of reconciliation and objectivity. If on Monday my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark) and some of my other hon. Friends catch Mr. Speaker's eye they will deal with these matters after more mature consideration.
In the meantime, I warmly welcome the broad consensus in the House that terror must be brought to an end at all costs and that peace must prevail before peacetime reconstruction can begin.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: Although not an expert on Irish matters, I am pleased to take part in the debate because I accept that over the years we have tended to sit back while all was quiet in Northern Ireland, to forget the past and to hope that all would remain quiet. Only because of recent events are many of us now taking a professional interest in that part of these islands.
Worry has been expressed about the television and radio coverage of events in Northern Ireland. I have no fear of the cameras looking over the shoulders of our troops. Indeed, the record of the British Army is all the better because what our troops there have had to face


has been seen, usually on the day it has happened, in this country. Many mothers and fathers of soldiers in Northern Ireland have been reassured by these pictures and reports.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who has apologised for not remaining in his place during the debate, spoke of the Compton Report. I detected a flaw in his argument, and I speak as one who served in Palestine with the British Army right up to the end of the Mandate. My hon. and learned Friend is anxious that we do not go down the slippery slope of committing even worse atrocities. I agree with him, but I am anxious also to protect our troops.
I do not want us to follow the pattern that occurred in Palestine. Towards the end of the battle both sides were sending out what can only be described as execution squads. I want to be sure that the slippery slope is not followed. It may be hoods today. Will it be torture tomorrow?
Because I am not an expert on Irish affairs, I intend to comment only on the rôle of our troops there, because I fear that we have, in effect, already lost a major battle. I have no doubt that the British Army will beat the I.R.A.—indeed, we are winning now—but only if it is a lasting victory will it have any meaning. It will have been in vain if the I.R.A. goes underground only to emerge at a future date.
We must begin winning back the people of Northern Ireland. In this urban guerrilla type of warfare the I.R.A. can flourish only if it has the backing of the local people. I regret to say that what has seemed to happen is that the British Army is no longer under the control of Parliament—

Lord Balniel: rose—

Mr. Concannon: I expected the Minister to disagree with me, and I deliberately prefaced my last remark by saying that it had seemed to happen, not that it had happened.

Lord Balniel: Let me make it profoundly clear that what the hon. Gentleman said is not so. The British Army is firmly under the control of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and myself as Minister of State.

Mr. Concannon: I am only expressing what I know to be the feeling among many people in Northern Ireland, and unfortunately it is also felt by some of our troops.
On the question of internment, I disagree with many of my hon. Friends. I am not necessarily against it. How could I be with my background? There have been times when, because law and order has broken down in various parts of the world, internment has been absolutely necessary. If, during my Army career, I had gone out and brought someone in and had been told the following morning that he had been released without being charged, I, too, would have felt aggrieved. It is particularly morale sapping for troops to bring in a number of people whom they think should be interned and to find that half of them are released almost immediately.
It seemed—I stress that this has only seemed to be the case—that this aspect of the campaign was not under the direct control of the Home Secretary. It should have been made clear that when people were brought in, the files on them would be examined in such a way that the British Home Secretary would determine whether or not they were released.
Unfortunately, the internment policy has not worked because for every I.R.A. murderer, gunman or bomber interned, another ten have taken his place outside. Ten have been recruited for every one caught in the net, and this has resulted in more shooting of British soldiers and civilians.
The House at times has given the British Army difficult and disagreeable tasks. We have only to look at Palestine, Cyprus, Malaya, Kenya and Korea. But what we are asking our troops to do in Northern Ireland is one of the most difficult and disagreeable tasks the British Army has ever had to perform, and the Army is performing it as no other Army in the world could perform it.
I wonder whether we are doing the troops a great service by stressing that their morale is always sky high. Unfortunately, it is not; it is ebbing to a great extent, and I say this with great regret, but any other Army in the world under similar pressure would have disintegrated by now.
There must be a fresh direction to our policy in Northern Ireland. I hope that the Government will carefully consider my right hon. Friend's speech and make a fresh start. This will be a long haul and there will be still much heartache. There can be no quick solution. What is required is a change of direction. I do not say this with any malice, but historically the Tory Party does not have the same opportunities for doing certain things as the Labour Party has in Government.
I hope that my Leader's remarkable speech, in which he showed great perception, will give a ray of hope to the people of Northern Ireland, and that our bipartisan policy will continue, especially while British troops are still in Northern Ireland, so that we can give them the full backing which they deserve.

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Tugendhat: The party to which I have the honour to belong is known as the Conservative and Unionist Party. The word "Unionist" signifies the traditional devotion of the party to the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I hope that the crisis through which we have been passing will lead us to think of a new meaning for "Unionist" which will signify our desire that British standards and equal standards should apply in this country and in Northern Ireland.
We must all know in our hearts that over many centuries of British rule Ireland has not been treated equally with this country. The people of Ireland have not enjoyed the same rights and privileges as the people of this country and, in particular, those of the Roman Catholic faith have been discriminated against for many hundreds of years. But this is not a time for recrimination.
In the last two years important reforms have been introduced by Lord O'Neill, Lord Moyola and Mr. Brian Faulkner. One can safely say that if the reforms of the last two years had been introduced earlier with the full-hearted support of the Protestant population we should not be in the mess we are in today. Although it is not a time for recrimination, one must look at the history of Ireland to get an understanding of the type of solution that is likely to be enduring, to bring peace

to the island and to prevent a recurrence of the problems which have occurred each decade since the Government of Ireland Act and many times before that.
The most important feature of the Irish situation is that, as a result of their unhappy experiences, a feeling has grown up amongst the people that the Government and the forces of law and order when they are connected with this country are not to be trusted. There is the feeling that the Government are there to maintain supremacy, and that the police are there to maintain the supremacy of the Government.
There have been important reforms in the last few years and the reasons for the suspicions of the Catholic population have been met, but one cannot expect the suspicions of many hundreds of years to disappear as the result of two years' legislation. There is a feeling amongst the Catholic population that the Government and the forces of law and order, including the British Army, exist to maintain the position of Protestant supremacy. It is this which has led to the continuation of the supremacy and the illegal organisations over so many years, the feeling among the Catholic minority partly of injustice and partly of vulnerability, and the feeling that when troubles occur there is nobody to protect them. At first they thought that the British Army would do so, but the suspicions of ages reasserted themselves once the terrorist campaign began.
At the same time, we must recognise the sad and difficult position of the Protestant community in Northern Ireland. They, too, feel themselves to be a minority, as the Leader of the Opposition said. They, too, feel themselves to be embattled, and they, too, are constantly afraid that they will be let down and become a minority in a hostile country. Their feelings of insecurity and their suspicions about the aims and ambitions of others have been enhanced by the fact that they enjoyed the protection of a permanent Government over many years, and tended to regard certain of the forces of law and order as being designed primarily to maintain the position, rather than in the light in which we think of the police force here.
I have made this brief excursion into what I believe to be the causes of the


suspicions of the two communities in Northern Ireland because it is important to look at the past if one is to have a clear idea on how the future should develop. We must recognise that Northern Ireland's history—particularly since we are responsible for it now—suggests that we cannot look at Northern Ireland merely as an extension of this country or as an extension of the Republic of Ireland. If our object is to bring British standards, justice, equality and fair treatment to the people of that country, and to maintain them, different representative institutions, and different mechanisms and procedures for implementing law and order, may well be necessary. As a result of its history, Northern Ireland is different from this country. Our ambition must certainly be the maintenance of and adherence to a universal British set of standards. This does not necessarily mean that the institutions which are applicable in this country would be applicable in Northern Ireland, with its unique history and problems.
I do not believe that this is the time for a back bencher to put forward detailed proposals for settling the dispute. For one thing, he does not have the information to enable him to do so, and, for another, it is hardly the place of a back bencher to put forward ideas that he can have no possible means of implementing. I do, however, feel that one can from the back benches make certain suggestions about the principles on which a settlement should be founded.
The first of these is clear. The Roman Catholic minority must be guaranteed a stake, a voice, an interest, in the Government of the Province. The history of this minority means, as the Northern Ireland Green Paper admitted, that the Catholic minority can never hope in the normal course of events to share in the Government. Special provision should, therefore, be made to ensure that the Roman Catholic population have a voice and a share in the Government of the Province.
It is essential to devise a system of maintaining law and order in the long term in which the Roman Catholic population can feel an enduring interest and in which it has a stake. This may well mean that we shall have to adjust our-

selves to different ideas for the organisation of the police force from those we have become accustomed in this country. It may mean that the idea of a single police force or a provincial police force may not be appropriate. I do not think, however, that this is the time for backbenchers to put forward detailed proposals. Just as it is necessary for the Roman Catholic population to have a voice in the Government, so it is necessary to ensure that they never again feel the vulnerability which they have felt in times of trouble and which has proved such a source of strength to the I.R.A. They must be given confidence in the forces of law and order.
The third principle on which we must base our thinking is that this Parliament and this Government cannot allow themselves to stand aside, like Pontius Pilate, from the affairs of Northern Ireland. We must admit that this House and our Government have tended to do that over the years of British rule in Ireland. Even in the short time that I have been in this House I have been appalled by the fact that when the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) was in prison soon after I arrived here extraordinary difficulties arose when hon. Members wanted to ask Questions on the subject.
My hon. Friends in the Ulster Unionist Party maintain, and I support their right to do so, that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and, as the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Capt. Orr) said, they feel themselves to be British. That is their right, and I support it. If they feel themselves to be British then this House should have the same rights in Northern Ireland to make inquiries of the kind I have mentioned, the same rights as it has in Scotland and Wales. Westminster cannot allow itself to be separated from Northern Ireland affairs in the way it has done in the past.
Any arrangement made for bringing about a new system in Northern Ireland—a new relationship between Northern Ireland and this country—must always be based on the principle that Northern Ireland will remain a part of this country for as long as the majority of its people wish.
Equally, the system must have provision for a united Ireland, should the people


of Northern Ireland wish to take that route. When the Government of Ireland Act was passed after the First World War it was expected, both in London and in Dublin, that this would be a temporary Measure. It was believed that when the Six Counties were established as a separate unit this would be the first step towards a united Ireland. Hon. Members who have studied this will know that the machinery existed in embryo in the Council of Ireland and in other ways. It was the belief of the British Government as much as the Irish Government that Northern Ireland would not remain separate for all time and it was not expected that the Government of Ireland Act would become Holy writ. It is right that Northern Ireland should remain a part of the United Kingdom for as long as its people wish, but it is also right that there should be provision in the constitutional relationship between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, likewise between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, for a united Ireland should the people of the South as well as the North wish to be united.
Any progress we make in Northern Ireland must hinge and depend on the success of the troops in fighting the terrorists. If they are not successful, anarchy will result, not only in Northern Ireland but throughout the whole of Ireland. There are no simple solutions. It is absurd to suggest, as some hon. Members have, that we can simply withdraw our troops and leave the parties to settle their own affairs. That would bring about bloodshed that might—as the Leader of the Opposition said today—make even St. Bartholomew's Eve look like a dress rehearsal. There is no simple solution to be found by saying that we can hand over Northern Ireland to the Republic. Sensible people of all parties in Dublin recognise this. It is also recognised in Northern Ireland and in this House by virtually everyone. No political initiative can succeed unless there is success against the terrorists. Military success will not be worth fighting for, the troops will have died in vain, if that success is not accompanied by political initiatives. These must be designed to preserve a just society based on British principles, but taking account of Irish realities.
Some hon. Gentlemen have suggested that there are lessons to be learned from Northern Ireland for this country; that what is happening in Northern Ireland could happen in the Midlands and in great cities throughout the country where we have an immigrant population. They are quite right. The lesson of Northern Ireland is that where a minority of the population is treated unjustly and becomes alienated from the Government and the police, anarchy can result. The lesson should be that never again should territory under our rule and for which we are responsible have within it such conditions as bring about a situation in which evil can flourish in the way it has flourished in Northern Ireland. If we learn that lesson we shall have learned something from all the tragedy and sorrow of the situation, and something will have been gained.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. John D. Grant: I endorse the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat). I shall not follow him in trying to dissect the problems, nor will I set out a 15-point plan, much as I admire the initiative of the Leader of the Opposition in so doing. I address myself to one particular aspect of the Northern Ireland situation, namely censorship. This was referred to by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) earlier in the debate.
It is clear that we are not only involved in fighting a war in Northern Ireland; we are also involved in a propaganda war—a war for men's minds. In these circumstances it is not surprising that some voices have been raised suggesting that any reporting of events and, even more serious, of points of view which may appear to give some comfort to the terrorists in Northern Ireland should not be permitted. I share the view already expressed that that is starting on the slippery slope. It is akin to the problem of physical interrogation leading to torture.
Many of us on this side of the House feel that there is a very narrow dividing line. The application of censorship can lead to a situation in which the real victim is the truth. In that situation doubts and suspicions are created, fears are heightened, and rumour abounds. When it is suggested that reporters should


not talk to the troops, to say nothing of the I.R.A., we are indeed on that slippery slope. It is good to know that these voices are not coming from the Army itself.
There will of course be errors of judgment by journalists concerned in on-the-spot reporting of a situation such as this. I have no time for the "T.V. bullies", the interviewers who sometimes seem less anxious to probe for the truth than to create good T.V. These people are not usually to be found in the ranks of the front-line reporters. They are the glamour boys, the prima donnas of the T.V. studios.
According to reports of a meeting of the Television and Radio Journalists held in London this week there is at least a form of unofficial censorship going on within the B.B.C. and I.T.V. over the reporting on Ulster. One reporter is quoted as saying:
People now go for the safest angle"—
he means journalists reporting the scene—
they talk to the police and the army but, because they no longer talk to the Catholics, they do not understand what the Catholics are thinking.
If that is the case—and it appears to be so—it is a very sad and serious situation. I refer to The Times of last Thursday which said:
It has to be remembered that the Press has a duty to report all sides of every case. The Press has to report the I.R.A. for the same reason it had to report the pre-war Nazi Government of Germany because without such reporting the situation cannot be understood. Despite individual and inevitable errors, some of which have infuriated the Catholic minority, just as others have infuriated the Protestant majority, Press and television have been giving an account of the whole situation and so in particular has the B.B.C.
I am sure The Times was correct when it went on to say that censorship was not only offensive in a mature democracy but also counter-productive, as I believe internment has proved to be. But that is another issue. Censorship would mean that no assessment was free from the taint of suspicion of Government supervision, and it would undermine confidence. I am among those Members of the House who favour the establishment of a broadcasting council because I see it as a body to deal with legitimate com-

plaints, not only from viewers but also from within the television media. I would certainly oppose any such body if I thought it would turn into an arm of censorship.
This dispute over the reporting of events in Ulster has, if anything, underlined the need for a body of this kind which can operate freely and impartially, and I would say free from the backstairs pressures to which it seems broadcasters in this respect have been subject and which may well constitute a subtle form of censorship.
I trust that when the Home Secretary deals with these matters on Monday he will underline firmly and unequivocally the Government's complete rejection of censorship, whether it occurs in dictatorships such as South America and Rhodesia, Greece, Spain and in the Eastern European countries, or in any form in the United Kingdom.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Peter Tapsell: There are three basic problems—to beat the gunman, to command public support for the measures necessary to do so, and to find an ultimate political solution. The heartening feature of the debate so far is, as one would expect, that in speeches from both sides there is reflected the absolute determination of those who have spoken, and of those on whose behalf they have spoken throughout our country, to ensure that however long and grim the struggle may be, the gunman will be defeated. If we do nothing else in this debate but send that message to Northern Ireland, we shall have played a useful rôle in the tragic crisis in that Province.
The rôle of the Army in all this has been magnificent, and it remains absolutely crucial. There is no need for me to add to the great tributes which have deservedly been paid from both sides to the Army.
Earlier today I read an editorial from the regimental magazine of a regiment which has just been transferred from Northern Ireland back to Germany. I thought I would read an extract to the House. I understand that it is written by the commanding officer. It says:
The precious gift of law and order, hard won after many centuries of troubles in England and Scotland and Wales, has never been fully achieved in Ireland. There may be many more months of strife in this unhappy


island before some of the inhabitants are converted from their mediaeval attitudes of mind and begin thinking in terms of this century. However, the British Army with its discipline and restraint has been a most powerful and civilising influence. We are glad to have been called and we will return to Ireland again and again until the job is done. We have all had first-hand experience of how a few evil and bigoted men can bring terror and foster deep hatreds among people who are individually charming, generous to an extreme and loyal to their friends. We will watch the extermination of the I.R.A. in the next few years from our stations in Germany where the last generation of British soldiers carried out the same civilising process when fighting the Nazis a quarter of a century ago.
That extract expresses very well the attitude of the Army in the rôle which it has to play and which it has done so supremely well.
We have to ensure that it has sufficient men to carry out this work. The whole country was shocked by the tarring and feathering a few weeks ago of those poor girls. Apart from the appalling personal humiliation of the girls, for which we felt so deeply, what horrified me was that it was possible, in a part of the United Kingdom, for a large crowd to gather for a considerable time and to behave in that way without interruption from the Army or police.
I understand that the Army has to concentrate in particular areas at certain times and cannot be everywhere at once. The fact is that at the moment there are not sufficient troops there to carry out the necessary tasks. We all hope that the Minister of State is right when he said that there were indications that the Army was getting on top of the I.R.A. He was careful not to put a time scale on this. We have to accept that it will be a grim and long struggle and that, to vary a famous phrase, we may have to think in terms of years rather than months.
If the Army finds that it has not enough men—and we already have 14 of our 45 battalions in Northern Ireland—more men will have to be found from elsewhere. We must demonstrate our absolute determination to ensure that the Queen's Writ runs in every part of Northern Ireland. We must make it absolutely clear to all concerned that, if necessary, we shall not hesitate to call up the Territorials, if more men are needed and cannot be found in the Regular Army.
We must also make it clear that, if necessary, we shall call up enough men to be able to close the Border really effectively between Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland. The whole history of guerrilla warfare in every country is that it is extremely difficult to defeat guerrillas if they have an open frontier over which they can retreat and be re-equipped. I do not believe that the battle against the I.R.A. will be decisively won until effective control of the Border has been established.
The second part of the battle, and in some ways the most important part, is the commanding of public support for the necessary measures. The I.R.A. recognises clearly the value of public support. It lays great emphasis on its public relations and propaganda. We must do the same. I do not subscribe to the view that there should be any censorship of what goes on in Northern Ireland. Though there is much talk about censorship I have never met anybody on this side of the House who believes it should be introduced. It appears to be largely an imaginary suggestion that there should be censorship. It is, however, important that the media should exercise patriotism and good judgment in reporting accurately and truthfully what is happening in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications put the point very well in a speech over the weekend by saying that there can be no impartiality between our soldiers and the gunman. I was glad to see that on the following day Lord Hill, in a statement defending the B.B.C., picked up that sentence and reproduced it almost identically. I believe that that sentence went to the root of the matter. If the B.B.C. at all times recognises that there can be no impartiality between the gunmen and the forces of law and order, then it will not be open to criticism.
The media can report only what is said to them. Those who hold moderate views have a duty to see that their views are constructively expressed. Some times I feel that insufficient attention is given to the presentation of discussions of Northern Ireland. Often when people talk about Northern Ireland they fall into a strange form of foreign patois. The fact that Westminster in the past has not been so closely involved with Northern


Ireland as it should have been makes it more difficult to explain to public opinion at home that Ulster is in no sense a foreign country but an integral part of the United Kingdom.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in answer to Questions on Tuesday, truly said that he had had conversations with the Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland and Eire. To the ordinary man in the street such words automaticaly creates an atmosphere in which Northern Ireland is felt to be a less integral part of the United Kingdom than it really is. The constitutional position of Northern Ireland could be usefully examined with a view to underling the fact that Westminster is the sovereign authority.
Another small example of the wrong approach to this matter was the decision to award the General Service Medal to our troops serving in Northern Ireland. Nobody suggests that the troops do not deserve recognition, but it was a psych-logical and political mistake to award to our troops in Northern Ireland the same medal as was given to our troops who served in so many colonial campaigns. It would surely have been better to have issued a special Queen's Medal, or whatever one likes to call it, particularly related to Northern Ireland, which in no way could be identified with overseas colonial struggles. We must always remember that this is an outbreak of violence in a part of the United Kingdom.
I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) in saying that it is not the duty of a backbench Member to put forward detailed constitutional solutions. I intended to make a number of such suggestions but, having listened to the Leader of the Opposition's constructive speech earlier today, and having noted the bipartisan tone of the debate, I have decided not to put them forward now. They are not as detailed as those put forward by the Leader of the Opposition, and since some of them coincide fairly fairly closely with some of his suggestions and others do not. I see no advantage in introducing a possible note of controversy into these discussions.
We should, perhaps, take heart from the fact that when de Tocqueville wrote

about the origins of revolutions, he pointed out that violence frequently breaks out not at the time when there is the greatest repression and injustice under a bad Government, but precisely at the moment when reforms are being introduced by a moderate and good Government. Ulster in recent years has been a classic example of this. Lord O'Neill has proved to be the Mirabeau of the Ulster situation. Unfortunately, a large number of people seem anxious to play the role of Robespierre. However, the British people are good at dealing with Robespierres. If we can build on the reforms of the last few years, which have already gone a considerable way towards abolishing the undoubted part injustices suffered by the minority religious group in Ulster, then, having smashed the I.R.A., I believe there may be a happier future for Northern Ireland than seems possible at present.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I feel as deeply perplexed about this subject as most hon. Members of the House, and certainly as most members of the public. I find no easy answers on Northern Ireland. I confess my personal knowledge of the situation to be limited. I see the various items on television, I read the newspaper reports and I hear reports on the situation from those whom I trust in this House. There seems to be no obvious solution which puts itself forward as more meritorious than any other.
I listened with deep interest to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition today, and I hoped that the new initiative of which he spoke might be the way to break through the cloud of ignorance and bigotry which has so long bedevilled that island. But, in view of the history of the matter, nobody can be hopeful of even achieving the comprehensive suggestions put forward by my right hon. Friend.
I wish to raise certain points in connection with the debate last week on the Compton Report. Because of the nature of that report, one crucial issue connected with Ireland, was lost sight of, and it is with that that I wish to deal. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham) and I have raised this matter as a point of


principle in our own party, on the Floor of the House, in Parliamentary Questions and in a Motion on the Order Paper which has now attracted 90 signatures.
What we are saying is not a criticism of the British Forces in Northern Island, nor is it a criticism of the Irish situation as such. It is a criticism of the authorised methods of interrogation as disclosed in the Compton Report. We do not consider in our criticisms any of the allegations of ill-treatment or brutality made by any of the complaints mentioned in the Compton Report. We take and accept the explanations made by the security forces about those allegations. I am prepared to accept what the Compton Report says about those individual allegations.
What disturbs me is that the memorandum put in by the Ministry of Defence about methods of interrogation discloses an alarming situation, which apparently has been accepted by the authorities. Here there is no question of a conflict of testimony between gunmen and the security forces. This criticism is based simply upon the memorandum which was put in to the Compton Committee by the Ministry of Defence. The memorandum, which was accepted by the Compton Committee, disclosed as part of the authorised procedure that when men were interrogated they were stood against a wall for up to six hours at a time and for totals which in one case amounted to 43½ hours. It disclosed that they had hoods placed over their heads and that they were subjected to a noise machine which was described by the Compton Committee as
… a continuous hissing noise, or electronic 'mush', loud enough to mask extraneous sounds and prevent effective oral communication between detainees.
It disclosed that their posture at the wall was such as to place them with their legs apart and their hands on the wall. It disclosed that their food and drink was supplied by quantities of bread and water at widely spaced intervals.
When I read that in cold print I was horrified. I did not believe that our methods of interrogation ever reached that kind of uncivilised standard. I have heard the explanation of the Home Secretary, of the Minister of State for Defence and of other Government spokesmen that this is an authorised procedure which

dates back to Aden and is in accordance with rules which were first put forward by the Labour Government in 1965 and subsequently amended.
When I look at those rules, I find no suggestion about the methods of interrogation. They set out general principles about a negative attitude towards violence, brutality and ill-treatment. But the methods which are to be used by the security services in interrogation are not set out at all.
Reference has been made by the Minister of State for Defence to the Bowen Report as if that in some way gave a clearance for these kinds of methods. I have looked through that report closely, and it contains no suggestion that these methods of interrogation were used. What is said in the Bowen Report is that there were allegations of physical ill-treatment—namely, beating, bruising, and so on—that these were investigated by Mr. Bowen, and that he accepted some while rejecting others. But there is no suggestion that the authorised methods of interrogation were at fault; still less is there any description of what the authorised methods of interrogation amounted to.
Now that they have been disclosed, there must be a careful appraisal of what methods of interrogation should be allowed in our society, and they should be vetted openly by this House. I am not content that "three wise men", however distinguished and learned, should pass judgment about this, and that in some vicarious way that should be considered my judgment upon the matter. This is a matter which goes to the root of what one accepts as civilised behaviour in our society, and it has to be decided by this House.
Before interrogation methods of this kind can be tolerated further, the Government have to come to this House with a set of regulations or a Motion which affirms that these methods are tolerable, that this House has to vote on it, and that a majority has to accept it. In my view, it would be intolerable if a majority of this House were to say that these methods were justifiable whatever the result.
I have put down a Parliamentary Question for next Monday asking how much information, how much ammunition, how many arms, and how much


explosive were recovered as a result of the interrogation of the 14 men who were subjected to methods of this kind in Northern Ireland. I ask it in that way in order that the information should not be traced back to the men, so that they are not endangered in any way. I want to know simply the total amounts of arms and ammunition, which were recovered. I am prepared to accept that a substantial amount was recovered. But, even if it was, and even if thereby there were a reduction in the amount of slaughter that has been taking place in Northern Ireland, I could not accept that that was sufficient to justify these methods of interrogation being used.
One hon. Member put it to me at one stage that if by torturing one U-boat captain one can save the lives of all the men in an aircraft carrier, one is thereby justified in torturing the U-boat captain. But how far is one to go? If the U-boat captain will not yield up this vital information when a hood is put over his head, when his arms are outstretched against the wall and he has to lean against it, when he is subjected to a noise machine which emits an electronic "mush", and when he is fed on bread and water at intervals of six hours, is not the implication of the argument that one can step up the methods of interrogation until the required information is obtained?
If necessity knows no law, if it does not know the law of mitigated methods of interrogation, it means that we can apply some electronic device to a detainee's genitals, as was done by the Richardson gang, and find the information that we require in that way. We must say at some stage that to use these methods of force to extract information is not tolerable whatever the degree of provocation. To allow any other judgment upon the matter seems to be giving in to the kind of provocation which has been exerted by the I.R.A.
The I.R.A. says that it will use any methods of violence to get its own way. If we resort to methods of violence against detainees which would be unacceptable to the ordinary police force in this country in carrying out their duties, we, too, will be using methods of violence which normally we should deplore, and we shall

slip back from civilised standards. The I.R.A. will have won. It will not have won in the way that it intends, but it will have won in debasing our standards of civilised behaviour. I cannot accept that as a necessary concomitant of fighting the I.R.A. and winning the battle.
I go further. I say that even if the methods of interrogation were to yield the required information, still I would not accept them. However, I do not think that it is necessary to have such methods in order to yield this kind of information.
A moment ago I mentioned the activities of the Richardson gang. There can be no worse example of the criminal ill-treatment of human beings than that which came out in the evidence in the course of the trial of the gang at the Old Bailey. These men subsequently were convicted. They were convicted partly out of the mouths of witnesses who were prepared to give evidence against them. They were convicted partly out of their own mouths. Their own evidence was obtained by methods which have been hallowed over the years as normal police methods of interrogation. In the course of my life at the Bar I have seen and dealt with vicious and violent men who have no regard for human life or human sensibility. I have seen the police methods of interrogating that kind of man.
I do not believe that anybody in the I.R.A. is worse than some of the men I have seen in the criminal courts, but the police do not resort to these methods of interrogation to get information, and if they did there would be an immediate outcry in this House. Indeed, this is the most serious aspect of the matter, because if any suggestion is made in a criminal court that the police have exceeded the normal methods of interrogation and used force, such allegations are nearly always—in fact, in my experience, always—denied by the police. They may later be accepted by the jury, but they are denied by the police, because the police know the limits of interrogation and refuse to admit that they have gone beyond them.
Sometimes a policeman takes the law into his own hands because he wants to get evidence against a person whom he believes is guilty, and he goes beyond the accepted code, but if that is proved


he is condemned. He is therefore careful about what he does, and the general totality of policemen do not go beyond the accepted limits of interrogation.
What we are saying in this report is that these methods of interrogation are not outside the accepted code, that they are what we, in the name of the British people, have authorised our interrogators to carry out; and that I cannot accept. It may be that sometimes in the course of interrogation some security men go beyond the limits of accepted methods of interrogation. I should condemn that, too, but I can understand that that kind of assiduous dedication to getting information might take place.
But for us to hallow it, for us to write it into the rules, for us to say that this is acceptable by standards of decent behaviour, seems to be so shocking that I was surprised that there was not an open revolt in the House when this report came out, and I was surprised that it did not come out openly during the debate last week. I hope and believe that when the report of the "three wise men" is produced to the House there will be a debate upon it which will show a depth of feeling which will make these methods of interrogation impossible in the future.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) and I should like to deal with some of the points he made. Perhaps he will allow me to do so during my speech, because I intended to deal with some of the matters which he raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Horn-castle (Mr. Tapsell) felt that the number of Army units in Northern Ireland could be increased. I should like to draw his attention to a reply which I received today from the Minister of State when I asked what arrangements were being made for the protection of police stations in Northern Ireland. He said:
The Army … will guard as many stations as the operational situation and the Regular and U.D.R. manpower available in Northern Ireland permit. There has been an increase recently in the number of stations at which full-time or part-time guards are provided: this number was 76 in all at 19th November, compared with 61 in October.

There are only 150 stations, and these have been made the object of deliberate attacks by terrorists as part of their campaign. It is disgraceful that the Army cannot provide enough men to protect another 40 or 50 stations at which policemen are stationed, sometimes with their wives and children, which are being deliberately attacked. The Army should protect these courageous men who are serving and protecting people in Northern Ireland. I agree with my hon. Friend. There should be sufficient troops in Northern Ireland to protect the 50 or 60 police barracks which are not now protected.
I do not intend in any way to criticise the Army itself, or the soldiers. No words can express the gratitude of the people in Northern Ireland for the work done by the troops. I have seen them on duty for 16 and 18 hours out of 24, and in all conditions. Even tonight, with the weather conditions as they are, soldiers are out on the streets in Northern Ireland, liable to be shot at by snipers hiding on the roofs of houses. The sniper cowardly waits until a small patrol passes below him and then picks off the last man. Because it is dark, it is impossible for the rest of the patrol to discover where the shot came from, or to root out the sniper.
These terrorists—and this answers the point made by the hon. Member for York—are vile and vicious in the extreme. With them it is a case of no holds barred. They will kill their own people. They have tied up, tarred and feathered and shot the legs from under a man because they suspected that he had been talking to the police. They have tarred and feathered young girls. Within 100 yards of my own house they blew up an electricity headquarters. They have killed and horribly maimed innocent girls.
They are not like the men in the aircraft carrier to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The people who have been killed in Northern Ireland were not at war. They were ordinary civilians going about their ordinary, everyday business. The terrorists came in, put a bomb under the staircase, and then telephoned the office to say that a bomb would go off in five minutes and everbody should be cleared out of the building before then. In fact, the bomb went off 30 seconds later, before anybody had time to get


further than the staircase. One man was killed and many girls injured and maimed for life.
In his speech today my hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to some of these incidents, and the House listened to him in silence. He spoke about an average of 70 shooting incidents a week during October and November. I ask the House to realise that that means 10 shooting incidents each day. There were 99 incidents during the last week of October, and my hon. Friend gave further details of the number of incidents each week during October and November. In addition there are, on average, about 34 explosions a week. These are explosions of 20 lb., 30 lb., and sometimes 40 lb. of gelignite. It should be realised that one 1 lb. of gelignite can kill about 12 people. These bombs are placed in crowded shops in the middle of the afternoon, and they are set off quite indiscriminately.
The law has always recognised the difference between ordinary criminals, whom the police usually get the better of, and those who are motivated by seditious intent, such as these terrorists who are out to overthrow the constitution. This campaign, which is an attack on the constitution of the country, is in a class of its own. These men may be interrogated for five or six hours with their hands resting on a wall, but they do not suffer any lasting damage. They do not suffer like the girl in the Red Lion public house a week ago who lost two fingers and her legs. I ask hon. Members to think of her having a drink and then suddenly being maimed in this way for the rest of her life.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I understand the hon. Gentleman's distress, and I share it, for innocent people who are maimed, injured or killed. I did not want to refer to it in my speech, but I am pressed to do so now. I remind the hon. Gentleman of the case which is going on at the Old Bailey now in which men are charged with carrying out the same kind of activities as those to which he is referring. Can the hon. Gentleman suggest that the police in that case ought to have been allowed to use methods of interrogation such as those disclosed in the Compton Report?

Mr. McMaster: As yet, and I hope that it never happens, this country has not known a terrorist campaign equivalent to that in Northern Ireland in recent months. The methods used by the interrogators are obviously successful. It would be totally wrong for the hon. Gentleman to be given the information for which he has asked in his Question. It could show that the 14 men interrogated had given information to the police, and if that were so their homes would be at risk. They have no compunction in killing the wives and children and murdering the men whom they only think give information to the police, just as they tarred and feathered and shaved the head of one of the girls in Londonderry, and almost blinded her, because they thought that she was going out with a soldier.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: The hon. Member says that these methods have been successful. How does he measure success? Before internment, the numbers of shootings, killings and other atrocities was extremely low compared with the soaring number following internment. If it is so successful, how does he account for this escalation?

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman must study his facts. In the six months of the year until internment was introduced in July, one and a half tons of explosives had been used in Northern Ireland—a colossal figure. No country can accept a state of affairs in which there is open terrorism of this nature, open, indiscriminate terrorism, without taking the steps which the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to accept were necessary—

Mr. Rose: No.

Mr. McMaster: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read the speech of his right hon. Friend tomorrow. He will find that his right hon. Friend admitted that internment was necessary—

Mr. Rose: Answer the question.

Mr. McMaster: I was answering the first part of the question. As to the second half—how do I know that the interrogations have been successful?—I would say that the figures quoted by my hon. Friend show that the number of arrests has increased since interrogation


began from 28 to 73 in one week. The number of explosives, arms and weapons recovered has been increasing rapidly in recent weeks—

Mr. Rose: That does not answer the question.

Mr. McMaster: I will not allow myself to be diverted any more. I am convinced, and if the hon. Gentleman would like me to go into the figures in detail—

Mr. Frank McManus: Reverting to my hon. Friend's point, would the hon. Gentleman deny that, in the 10 months before internment, 28 persons lost their lives in Northern Ireland and that in the weeks since internment, over 100 people have lost their lives? How does he prove, in the face of those facts, that internment has been anything but an absolute disaster?

Mr. McMaster: I am afraid that I must go back to my original statement. In 1969, 12 civilians were killed and in 1970, some 17 were killed, and 28 this year, before internment. The number has been rising rapidly throughout the past year and has gone on rising even throughout internment, but the situation—[Laughter.]—

The Lord Commissioner to the Treasury (Mr. Walter Clegg): This is not a laughing matter.

Mr. McMaster: Who can tolerate a situation in which one and a half tons of explosive has been used openly? In premises near my own house, one incident occurred before internment. These people, many of them not even members of the police or Army but just ordinary civilians going about their ordinary lives, were shot down and callously killed. The security forces are under the duty to detect those they think are responsible. Those responsible were not afraid to attend funerals of members of the I.R.A. or blatantly to boast that they were members themselves, or to attend meetings and issue statements to the Press.
Can these people be allowed to go about their ordinary business when the I.R.A. is given to such a campaign of violence? Is this tolerable in a civilised society? This was the reason for internment. The Leader of the Opposition feels that internment, although it should

in ordinary circumstances be deplored, had, by the time that it was introduced in Northern Ireland, become an absolute necessity to protect the innocent lives of men, women and children.
I should like to inform the House of the results of the searches by the Army. They have recovered some 216 illegal rifles, 71 shotguns, 282 pistols, 23 machine guns, 119,000 rounds of ammunition, 147 hand grenades, 3,240 lbs of gelignite, 4,857 detonators, 124 incendiary devices, 1,691 pipe bombs and over 19,000 ft. of fuse wire. These are frightening figures. One is appalled to think of an arsenal like that being held by any group illegally within a country to be used to do the maximum amount of damage and destruction, absolutely regardless.
An example is the activity of the gang reported in the Mirror on 16th September this year:
Petrol bombers attacked a school bus carrying handicapped children in Belfast. The bus, with about 30 children on board, was halted by a gang of stone-throwing youths. Children screamed in terror as three petrol bombs were hurled at the bus.
What kind of people are capable of incidents like that against handicapped children? As it happened, they were Roman Catholic children in the bus—

Miss Bernadette Devlin: rose—

Mr. McMaster: No, I will not give way—

Miss Devlin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those who threw the petrol bombs—

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith): Order.

Miss Devlin: —were in fact members of the Ulster Volunteer Force?

Mr. McManus: On a point of order. Is it in order for a Minister on the Front Bench to usurp the duties of the Speaker by himself shouting, "Order."?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): I have not seen or heard anything disorderly.

Mr. McMaster: To return to the theme, although we in Northern Ireland are very grateful for the work of the Army, this work must be intensified.


There are signs that conditions are improving. The number of shooting incidents has fallen in the last two weeks, as has the number of bomb incidents. The number of arrests has increased dramatically. There are only a very few areas in Northern Ireland where most of this trouble originates. In Belfast, for example, one thinks immediately of the Falls Road, Seaford Street, Ballymurphy and the Ardoyne and there is the Bog-side in Londonderry. These areas are sometimes less than a square mile. They must be properly cordoned off and thoroughly searched by the troops, so that those who are hiding there and coming out, who are responsible for these indiscriminate attacks on the soldiers and the police, can be found.
Two detectives whom I knew were shot in the back going home in my own constituency in a quiet street in Belfast. A gunman came out of a side street and shot Inspector Moore and Inspector McMaster, who bore the same name as myself. Eleven unarmed policemen have been shot in the back. Some of them were lured to their death by malicious 'phone calls and then shot down by these terrorists. The hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) smirks. I have heard no expression of sympathy from her lips for the people who have been killed or injured.

Miss Devlin: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman has accused me of smirking. I was not smirking but doubting his statements. He seems to feel that the responsibility for every death, for every person who drops dead, for every incident, particularly that to which he referred concerning Roman Catholic children, should be laid at the door of the I.R.A. without giving any evidence for it. It would be far better if he started to look among his constituents and supporters for the propagators of some of the violence.

Mr. McMaster: It will be a strange day when my constituents go to the middle of the Falls Road, the Ardoyne or the Bogside and take part in tarring and feathering incidents. None of my constituents was seen near the areas where these incidents have taken place, and the hon. Lady well knows it.

Miss Devlin: What about the three Scottish soldiers?

Mr. McMaster: The only way to get on top of the terrorist campaign is to continue and intensify the methods already being used and to intensify the searches which the Army has been carrying out so successfully in recent days. The House must realise what it is like to live in Northern Ireland at a time like the present. Even in quiet areas, no one can sleep in his bed at night and feel safe. Last month a man was found in my constituency with his hands tied behind his back. He had been blindfolded, gagged and shot through the head—the traditional way which the I.R.A. has of dealing with its enemies. I have records of many other cases, but I do not intend to take up time tonight by dealing with them.
I am surprised at the restraint of the majority of the population. Much play has been made of the fear of a Protestant blacklash. I am grateful to say that there has been very little sign of it, in the face of the terrible provocation which has led to the deaths of 160 people in Northern Ireland in the last three years. Many hundreds have been maimed for life by the actions of the terrorists.
The Protestants have formed vigilante groups. They stand through the cold nights at the end of their streets to stop cars being driven by terrorists down the streets and to prevent the throwing of pipe bombs into buildings. The older men among the vigilantes operate from nine o'clock to midnight. The young men, having done a day's work, come on from midnight to 3 a.m. The third shift is from 3 a.m. to 6 a.m. They guard each street in Belfast, such is the fear of people of the actions of these Republican murderers.
That brings me to the point which I particularly noted in the very interesting and useful contribution made by the Leader of the Opposition. He said that what had impressed him during his visit to Northern Ireland was the fear and hatred there. I underline what the right hon. Gentleman said. The fear and hatred must be experienced to be properly understood. I express my great apprehension about the future and the legacy which we are leaving our children, who are being brought up in an atmosphere of violence,


lawlessness burning and looting. The impression made on the minds of children is too frightening even to contemplate. That is perhaps the answer, if answer is required, to the points made genuinely and firmly by the hon. Member for York, who asked why prisoners should be interrogated in order to try to bring the violence to an early conclusion.
I wish to mention another aspect—it is an important aspect but not on the same level as the violence and intimidation—and that is the economic damage being done to Northern Ireland. This is a depressed area with unemployment figures very much higher than those of any other area. Our unemployment average among registered male workers is 8½ per cent., but in many areas it is up to 20 per cent. Businesses are being forced to close. Peoples' businesses are being burned during the night. They receive compensation, but they have devoted their lives to building them up. Shops, small factories and other premises are burned indiscriminately as part of the terrorists' campaign. These people cannot easily start up in business again.
We are, and always have been, anxious to attract new business to Northern Ireland, but what business man in his right mind would think of setting up a factory in Northern Ireland in the present conditions? The prospects for dealing with our unemployment problem in Northern Ireland are very bleak, and this is part, and a deliberate result, of the terrorists' campaign, a campaign designed not only to drive Northern Ireland and those responsible here into submitting to the claims of the terrorists but to drive the economy of Northern Ireland to the point of bankruptcy.
My hon. Friends have mentioned the way in which the media has been covering the situation in Northern Ireland. Together with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, I feel that on the whole we have had very fair and just reporting of the incidents which have occurred there. But there is one aspect that concerns me. I have had many letters, not only from my constituents but from people living in England and Scotland, the relatives of people who are serving in Northern Ireland, concerning the way in which the B.B.C. in particular continually interview the spokesmen of the

minority. There is not an opportunity lost by these people to spread malicious propaganda about Northern Ireland. Many people in the country feel that if the story is repeated frequently enough, it will be generally believed.
I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications said the other day, that there is no duty on the B.B.C., where the dispute lies between the terrorist and the soldier, to keep a fair balance between the two. The opposition we are facing, the enemy, the I.R.A., have a deliberate, well-thought-out plan. The plan follows traditional anarchist lines. First, they seek to discredit the security forces. In 1969 it was the police in Londonderry. Now it is the Army. They seek to discredit them by every means at their disposal, and they make very clever and cunning use of the media
I am surprised at how some of our leading journalists have been duped. I was surprised when I read a recent article in The Times, referring to a three-day battle in Londonderry in which the police were pelted with hundreds of petrol bombs, about the police retiring to pubs to argue about who fired the first shot. That type of reporting plays into the enemy's hands. It undermines our police. It is this type of reporting which has led to the escalation in violence over the last three years.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the I.R.A., many of us may agree with him, but earlier he used the word "minority". I hope he is not taking the view that the B.B.C., or any other organisation, should not outline and make known the views of the minority population in Northern Ireland. Would the hon. Gentleman clarify that?

Mr. McMaster: The hon. Member is right. I would in no way criticise that. The minority's views must be heard in the media. But those who have publicly proclaimed themselves to be supporters of the I.R.A. should not be exposed so much on the media, as they are at present. I do not envy the very difficult job of editors, either of the Press or the B.B.C., but they must always remember that their first duty, and that of everyone in the country, is to support the Government and the security forces. If they do not, we shall have anarchy.
Once we start allowing ourselves to be the dupes of the propagandists, the anarchists and the terrorists in Northern Ireland, and once we allow ourselves to carry their propaganda and to further it, we are furthering their ends and undermining the security forces, who have a very difficult job under the most trying circumstances. In circumstances of almost open warfare in Northern Ireland, it is up to us to support our security forces and the Government.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said, we need further time to consider the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. As I said, I welcomed his visit to Northern Ireland, and I welcomed his report of it to the House. The right hon. Gentleman has made a very careful appraisal of the terrorist campaign. He laid emphasis on the necessity to restore law and order before anything else can be attempted.
However, I cannot let this opportunity pass without placing on record my disagreement with some of the right hon. Gentleman's final suggestions. I am sure that this will come as no surprise to the right hon. Gentleman. In particular, his suggestion that the Governments of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland and Eire should immediately sit round a table and consider ways of ending partition in Ireland is not only untenable but is, to a certain extent, counter-productive. It can only give encouragement to the terrorists. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman had not dealt in such detail with this point. It is, apart from anything else, totally impracticable. Every day hon. Members opposite call for majority rule in Rhodesia. If they call for majority rule in Rhodesia. why do they not admit that majority rule is the only proper form of rule in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rose: For the whole of Ireland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: For the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. McMaster: To take it even further, as my right hon. Friend suggests, where does the unit stand? One can take the whole of the United Kingdom as one unit, in which case the Republicans would be

greatly outnumbered within the British Isles.
I call on the House tonight to show its confidence in the Government of Northern Ireland, who have been tackling a very difficult task, unparalleled in recent history. A campaign has been skilfully mounted against them which has not only been carried out by internal subversive organisations but in which there is clear evidence of external interference. The discovery of the arms at Antwerp is perhaps as clear an indication as anything else of the intervention of outside agencies. The desire of certain people to fish in troubled waters has aggravated the situation in Northern Ireland and has led to these colossal difficulties with arms being discovered there.
Those arms could not have got into Northern Ireland and into the hands of the terrorists, nor could the terrorists have been trained in their use, without the open and deliberate support of outside agencies.
I, together with many other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, believe that there should be more co-operation between the communities. My hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Tugendhat) said that there is deplorable segregation in Northern Ireland. This is a two-sided story. I have always deplored segregation in education. If children are educated apart, for the rest of their lives they cannot and will not grow up and work and live happily together. People of different religions live in separate localities in Northern Ireland. I should like to see this coming to an end.
As I say, it is a two-sided story. A policy of definite non-co-operation is pursued by many elements of the minority. I have had examples of this in things such as boys' clubs in my constituency. There is as great a duty on the minority to come forward and to play its full part as there is on the majority to make further concessions.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to express in their concluding speeches their determination to root out the terrorists, the men of violence. This would be the best contribution that my right hon. and hon.


Friends could make in bringing a speedy end to the terrorist campaign.
In so far as a political solution is required, the only sensible political solution that we require is that steps be taken to ensure that law and order are never disrupted again in the way that they have been in the past three years. The momentum the terrorist campaign has attained as a result of the mistakes of both the Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom Government should not be allowed to be repeated.
I particularly ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army to see whether better use could be made of our own local defence forces—the police, auxiliary police, Ulster Defence Regiment and even the Territorials. I am surprised that in the present circumstances better use has not been made of the Territorials. I do not accept the answer I have previously been given that the members of the Territorial Army should join the Ulster Defence Regiment. They are already in battalions. They have cohesion and local knowledge. I am sure that it is not beyond the ingenuity of the House to devise a way of mobilising the Territorial Army in Northern Ireland without having to mobilise the Territorial Army throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider that proposal.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: The hon. Member for Belfast. East (Mr. McMaster) has given us one of his characteristically blinkered speeches. I am beginning to wonder what is worse, the noise machine described in the Compton Report or listening to the hon. Gentleman for 33 minutes droning on without making a single constructive proposal for a political solution to what is a political problem. The hon. Gentleman is unable to see, and has been unable to see for the seven years since I entered the House, that Northern Ireland faces a political problem, and that a political problem cannot be solved by military means.
Many of us remember how seven years ago the hon. Gentleman told the whole world in a speech in the House that there was nothing wrong with Northern Ireland and that it was all a figment of

our imagination. He and his colleagues are responsible, and must accept the responsibility, for the killings occurring now. Had they then acknowledged the faults in the system of government in what the hon. Gentleman calls a civilised country, we should not be having the kind of debate we have to have. He would not then acknowledge that, far from being a civilised country, Northern Ireland practised forms of discrimination that would have brought a glimmer into the eye of a Dr. Vorster or Dr. Verwoerd.

Mr. MacMaster: The hon. Gentleman has not listened to what I said. The root of the trouble in Northern Ireland is not political, nor is it because of the oppression of a minority. It is that there exists in Northern Ireland a small portion of the minority who will never give up the idea of a united Ireland, no matter what concessions are made. They are fanatics. It is significant that all the concessions they asked for in Londonderry in 1969 were granted by the Northern Ireland Government, and the only result was an intensification of the terrorist campaign. They got what they asked for, and only asked for more and intensified their campaign.

Mr. Rose: If the hon. Gentleman proposes to make a second speech, I am sure that the whole House will be delighted. But he has left me with only about 12 minutes to answer those points, and I intend to deal with them thoroughly in my speech. The hon. Gentleman knows all too well that he and his hon. Friends entirely denied any of the charges levelled against them. It ill behoves him to talk about the reforms that were introduced, when he opposed every one of them. I shall catalogue them later.
Today has been a historic day in the history of Northern Ireland, for two reasons. The first is that perhaps for the first time this century a Front Bench spokesman, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, has talked of a transitional period towards the reunification of an Ireland that was artificially divided because of the threat of force by the hon. Gentleman's friends 50 years ago. I am one of those who are entirely opposed to coercion or force in the Irish situation, and I welcome the fact that a political initiative has been put forward


today with regard to the long-term prospects.
Today is also historic because at the Labour Party meeting today a Motion which I moved earlier this week was passed unanimously, with the support of the whole party. It condemns the way in which the rôle of British troops has changed since they were rightly sent in by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), now the Shadow Home Secretary—they were sent in with a rôle as mediators to prevent the destruction of the Bogside ghetto by those gentlemen whom the hon. Member seeks to support—and condemns in no uncertain terms the policy of internment, that ill-conceived policy which has been carried out with most remarkable means, as disclosed in the Compton Report, with remarkable bungling, and which has been entirely counter-productive, as the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) show, for since internment there has been an escalation of violence.
Far from detaching the population from the gunmen, the hon. Gentleman's policy has forced them into the hands of the gunmen. The policy which he supports has been counter-productive not because the root cause of the problem is the existence of a few thugs or disgruntled men, men whose methods one entirely condemns, but because such men can flourish only in a society in which there are enough people to support them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) said at our party meeting, the doors are open to them and the kettles are on tonight to receive them. because people are so disaffected by 50 years of oppression by the hon. Gentleman's friends that they are willing to tolerate the gunmen, knowing that when their houses were burned down and when they were driven out of their streets nobody protected them. Unfortunately, in this sort of situation the gunmen step into the vacuum.
I wish to dispose of one or two canards. First, there is the suggestion that because we on this side put forward constructive political proposals we can be taken in some way as not condemning the vile methods which have been used by the I.R.A. Provisionals, for example,

in planting a bomb in a public house to which ordinary Protestant workers go, thus dividing the ordinary working people of Belfast one from another even more on sectarian lines. I have no hesitation in condemning that, just as Conor Cruse O'Brien does in referring to the incipient Fascism which is latent in at least part of the I.R.A.
I wish to dispose, also, of the canard that because we utterly condemn the methods of ill treatment referred to in the Compton Report we can be accused in some way or other of undermining the morale of our forces. On the contrary. What undermines the morale of forces, as could be seen in Algeria and any other colonial war, is to put troops, by reason of the orders given to them, in an impossible situation, a situation in which actions of that kind become inevitable and escalate. I have the deepest sympathy for those young men who are out there tonight facing the sniper's bullet because of the policies which the hon. Member for Belfast, East has supported and pursued but which he has not yet had the intellectual honesty to recognise as an utter failure.
We saw that mentality displayed by the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Lt.-Col. Colin Mitchell), who certainly had some experience of colonial wars, when he justified these methods because, he told us, they had been used in Cyprus, in Kenya and in Aden, though without going on to add that in every case they had been a failure, and that "Mad Mitch", as he was then known. was thrown out.

Mr. Carol Mather: Not Kenya.

Mr. Rose: No, the hon. and gallant Gentleman was not in Kenya. We left Kenya, we left Cyprus, we left Aden. We have had to leave every one of those areas, and in every case—

Mr. Mather: Malaysia?

Mr. Rose: —that method and policy failed except, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, in Malaysia. It did not fail in Malaysia because we had begun to understand by that time that one does not defeat subversion of this kind by driving the gunmen—or, in that case, the Communists—into the arms of the people; one has to detach them from the people.
Internment has forced into the arms of the I.R.A. the whole of the minority population, to the extent that even the most moderate person on the side of the minority will not speak to the Home Secretary until internment ends. It has been self-defeating and carried out with the most remarkable bungling.
Reference has been made to the censorship of news coverage. I wonder what hon. Gentlemen opposite will say when they hear that I have asked for a showing in the House of Commons of a film which has been taken by "The World In Action" unit. I have asked for it to be shown exclusively to hon. Members, the elected representatives of the people.
I am not yet asking for this film to be shown generally on television. Perhaps it is wrong that it should be shown to the public. Perhaps it is one-sided. I reserve judgment because I have not seen it. I gather, however, that it will not be permitted to be shown here. It is right that hon. Members should see this film before talking about censorship. It is remarkable that we are to be denied the privilege of seeing it by I.T.A. and Granada.
It is suggested that by exposing the faults in the interrogation methods we are somehow destroying morale. The reverse is the case; by condemning such methods we are upholding the rule of law, for only by not condemning them shall we debase our standards to the point when we can be criticised in the way that we criticise oppressive régimes such as Franco's Spain, where the sort of tactics about which we are complaining in Northern Ireland are used for the suppression of the people. The same happens in Africa, which I visited recently. I am conscious that to talk about Northern Ireland today is like walking through a minefield, with possibly the same explosive results.
Since I became an hon. Member seven years ago I have, because of a close association with Northern Ireland, been putting forward proposals for peaceful reforms to take place there. As a result of my experience over the years, I can only tell hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have a lot for which to answer be-

cause they have expressed nothing but opposition to those reforms. The Labour Party failed in some ways because of our desire all the time to bring the Conservative Party along with us in our efforts to improve matters in Northern Ireland and secure much-needed reforms. I am delighted to say that at our party meeting today we decided unanimously that bipartisanship is not to be our policy.
That does not mean that we favour Catholic against Protestant. The Labour Party stands for human rights wherever they are assailed—where Protestants are being persecuted by Catholics, as in Franco's Spain, or vice versa in Northern Ireland. The same will be our view wherever persecution occurs in any part of the world. It is as foolish to say that we are pro-Catholic as to say that we are pro-black and anti-white because we do not believe in a sell-out to Ian Smith in Rhodesia.
Just as it was a mistake for us to try all along to take the blinkered hon. Gentlemen opposite with us in securing reforms in Northern Ireland, so it is equally true to say that the reforms that were agreed came too late. There have not yet been elections in Northern Ireland since the gerrymandering—or should I say "Derrymandering"—came to an end and we reformed the electoral system.
I recall my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock asking seven years ago, "What can we debate other than the question of Harland and Wolff?" Convention prevented us from discussing the whole question of Northern Ireland, and hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for that.
At every stage we were unable to proceed with reforms at a pace fast enough to overcome 50 years' accumulated grievances because the right wing of the Unionist Party smashed O'Neill, smashed Chichester-Clarke and will probably eventually do the same to Mr. Faulkner for having the courage to try to follow Westminster in carrying out reforms in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, East asked about reforms, during the passage of the 1965 Race Relations Bill, and again in 1967, we asked for an end to discrimination on religious grounds in Northern Ireland, and we got nowhere with that.

Mr. McMaster: rose—

Mr. Rose: The hon. Gentleman had his say for 30 minutes. I should like to give way, but I really cannot. He knows that I moved an Amendment asking for an ombudsman in Northern Ireland. We had one two years later. The trouble was that the reforms came only as a response to pent-up tensions and did not come soon enough to prevent those tensions from building up.
At that time some hon. Members thought that Northern Ireland sooner or later would become an issue in world politics. Emperor Haile Sellassie of Ethiopia, when I visited him a fortnight ago, after he had been questioned, asked what we were doing about the Northern Ireland issue. This is a world issue, and we are getting a very bad Press in the world. Only after blood was shed, after my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was battered in Derry, were the more moderate voices which had been speaking for several years listened to.
We are on the brink of a very dangerous situation in which civil war could break out in Northern Ireland and it is, therefore, necessary to make political proposals. The hon. Member for Belfast, East has done no service to the House by his catalogue and by refusing to make suggestions for any political initiative. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in a complex and historic speech has made long-term proposals. In the short term we must recognise that the rôle of the Army has changed to such an extent that it is unacceptable when it is seen to do what it did in the Falls Road and because of the policy of internment without trial. I demand an answer to the question whether these men will be brought to trial, what form of tribunal will be used to decide which men are guilty of offences, and whether the men against whom no evidence has been given will be released.
Ultimately the only answer is to replace the current set-up in Stormont by a form of government, a commission or otherwise, which gives the minority for the first time in 50 years a say in the affairs and the decision-making. The reason why one-third of the population is disaffected is that they have been second-class citizens. They have a right to participate in decision-making on an equal basis with their fellow citizens at local

and national government level. The root of the trouble lies there and not with a few gunmen, because a few gunmen cannot act without the support of a large number of people.
I ask the Government to come forward with constructive political proposals for bringing the minority population into the affairs of State and local government, and to state their political and military aims.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The winding-up speeches at the end of the first day of a two-day debate cannot have the air of finality which marks the normal one-day debate, but they may have the merit of a quieter atmosphere in which to consider the interesting ideas that have been put forward, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. In my view, however, there is only one key which will unlock the door which blocks progress and ensure the greater success of the various proposals made by my right hon. Friend, and that is internment.
The problems in Northern Ireland are many-sided. At one time the political aspect is important, at another the military aspect and at another the economic aspect. But these problems are not separate; they are together at all times. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in September said that there were two separate facts in Northern Ireland, the security and the political. In my view, they cannot be separated. Policy on Ulster, in any event, cannot stand still. What was appropriate in 1969 may not be appropriate in 1971. In our view, the policy introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in 1969 is no longer as relevant as it was. It has come to the end of the road.
This can be seen in the Catholic attitude to the troops. They are no longer seen by the Catholics in Ulster in a peacekeeping rôle, as they were two years ago. What has been happening in recent weeks and months has been expressed as an end to bi-partisanship, but what is really involved is a thinking aloud about changes in policy which are required. We have been working towards a new policy, in new circumstances, and it is our hope today not only that the changes in policy suggested by my right hon. Friend the


Leader of the Opposition will be considered—as we have been told they will be—but that most of them will be accepted by the Government.
These ideas were not forthcoming without great consideration; they were produced after much discussion with interested parties. We have noted the words of the Minister of State who spoke about "broad agreement", and when the debate is resumed next week, we shall listen attentively to discover what this means. I say this, not in any partisan way. It may be that given the history of the Conservative Party in this respect, the rôle of the Labour Party on Ulster can be more significant at this time than is usually possible for an Opposition.
As a result of my visit to Ulster, and, in particular, to Long Kesh and Crumlin Road, and from talking to people in many walks of life, I feel that the key is internment. Whoever one talks to in the minority group in Ulster, one can be in no doubt that since internment the political situation has changed radically. Internment has hardened attitudes. I appreciate that military judgment is involved in the question of garnering extra intelligence, but political internment was a turning point in Northern Ireland, and whatever happens, things will never be the same again until this aspect has been dealt with. The tribal loyalties which I noted in the Catholic community areas, because such they were, are always strong enough to support the I.R.A. to some degree on the basis of the past. Now, as we hear time and time again, the people in those areas offer relief and succour to the gunmen. The gunmen could not operate without a wide degree of support—[An HON. MEMBER: "And Russian arms."]—That may be so, but it does not matter from where the arms come.
If one is to make an analysis of the situation, one has to accept the views of both sides. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) has left the Chamber, but one cannot look at the situation without accepting views such as his and the views of Irish Republican Members in this House. In order to get an honest solution, one has to face up to the fact that the two views exist. For the purposes of my analysis, it does not matter too much from where

the arms have come. The plain fact is that there is support for the gunmen.
What everyone has been trying to do in this debate is to get some idea of what is involved in the situation. I felt the same at Long Kesh. The only internment camps that I have ever seen before have not been on British territory. I do not think that anyone can be very happy about it. To see it is shameful, as it is to see other parts of Belfast, to hear the views of both sides, and to hear about such incidents as that involving a bus with crippled children on board having a bomb thrown at it.
The existence of the internment camp is part of the wider shame of Belfast which affects both sides who express themselves in ways which are foreign to political life in this country. But, given all the practical difficulties, given the fact that of course there must be I.R.A. men among those who are interned, there has to be a better procedure on internment than we have at the moment. We must put our minds to devising a procedure which brings in the rule of law.
After our visit to Long Kesh and the Crumlin Road, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) and I talked. My hon. and learned Friend put his mind to the problem as he saw it. He wrote to the Home Secretary:
While some internees are presenting their cases to the Commission under Judge Brown, there is a general feeling that it would command more confidence among internees and their families if it … included a number of members nominated by an eminent international authority such as the President of the European Commission or the European Court of Human Rights, and if there were some assurance that their recommendations would be accepted or, where rejected, reasons would be given. Lastly, I spoke with certain solicitors, who were advising clients in connection with applications to the Commission. For reasons which are not clear to me Judge Brown has announced that the Commission will not hear oral arguments by lawyers, and the rôle of lawyers will be confined to assisting clients to prepare their cases. Indeed, legal aid is available for this purpose. But every practising lawyer is aware that such preparation is impracticable where no charges have been proffered, no specific allegations made, and there is no method of knowing in advance what will be said.
I am sure that we have to put our minds to this.
In The Times of Tuesday, I read:


In the Second world war there were better safeguards governing internment in the United Kingdom than now exist in Northern Ireland.
The Times today, referring to detainees and internees, says:
It is important they be treated according to the law, strict as that law can be.
It refers to the Special Powers Act, which I have looked at, and it says:
There were disturbingly few safeguards.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that even in Rhodesia there was legal advice and representation was permitted under the 1959 Act. I looked this evening at an internment notice which was served on a black African in Kenya in 1953. One of his crimes was making anti-European speeches to immigrants calculated to embarrass race relations, in the course of which he said that all Europeans should be made to leave the country. For one of the charges, the man was interned. It would be odd if anyone in this country advocating the return of immigrants were interned.
On Tuesday The Times spoke about the United Kingdom being internationally responsible for its preventive detention laws and that it should assert its authority to ensure the passage of law consistent with our international obligations and our democratic traditions. It said that, above all, internment must be the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament and the Westminster Government.
Internment changes by themselves will not be enough, but changes to bring matters within the rule of law are necessary to progress, in bringing Catholics into the Government, and in practical terms in doing something to bring the Social Democratic and Labour Party back to Stormont.
I felt when I was in Ireland that these things were not happening because of the "gut" reaction in the community as a whole. What must happen to achieve change of policy is to try to put ourselves in the position of people who feel strongly because of the situation. This change must come simultaneously with other changes. I hope that such changes will not be presented as a catalogue, but as part of a new political climate which will enable them to be understood.
I hope that this is what will happen to the ideas put forward by my right hon.

Friend today. There is no need to rehearse those suggestions but they envisage a commission before which people can talk freely—which at least gives a hope that something may be done. They also envisage a recasting of the Government of Northern Ireland to bring Catholics into various posts—and I appreciate that this idea has been put forward before. There must clearly be seen to be a move against discrimination in the community and, above all, there must be a massive economic and social expenditure on the provision of jobs and new industries and. above all, on housing.
Perhaps because I represent an area in the North which has a vast housing problem, I cannot help feeling some sympathy for the tribal feeling which exists in certain parts of Belfast. There are areas there which have disappeared, or are fast disappearing, from most of the Briitsh cities.
The political climate must be affected in two main ways. It must be made clear to the Protestants that one million of them cannot be forced out of the United Kingdom. I am sure that in Eire nobody in his right senses believes that Eire could cope with one million reluctant citizens. I have heard this view expressed by Republicans who have stated categorically that a million people cannot be forced into Eire. Protestants feel threatened; they feel beleagured; they feel that their view of life is under attack, not just from political changes but also from economic factors.
It was impressed at a party meeting in this House by a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) pointing out that Protestants tend to be in the declining industries. They, too, feel beleagured. Perhaps because I originally came from South Wales, I understand the lack of confidence that comes from economic change since it brings about social change in such a blunt way. The Orange Order, with its religious basis in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, is not understood by the more sophisticated. I do not believe that any ideas anybody has for change should result in Orangemen feeling threatened. In the same way, the minority cannot be asked to give up their strongly held belief in a united Ireland. But it must be made clear that discrimination must go and


that nobody's way of life is under attack. Something has to be done about internment. That is a "bull" point.
It would be better for both religions if they had to face up to the relevance of their faith in a changing economic and social world, instead of facing up to what they feel is a threat from the outside world to the religious ideas they hold dear. I felt when I was there that in the present social and economic climate they face a battle in seeking to maintain their beliefs in changing circumstances.
It is to the social and economic aspects in Northern Ireland that particular attention should be paid. Only if the political scene is set with great care can progress be made and a round-table discussion make any sense. Such a discussion must be the aim of the Government, and we shall listen very carefully on Monday. It was put to me—and we have all had different suggestions made to us—that the only way to force people in Ulster to face up to their responsibilities, instead of them to some degree living off our backs is for us to pull out. It is said that this would confront both sides with reality and, as has happened in Palestine and India, there may be a blood-bath but in the end it concentrates the mind.
We reject that solution. It is far too easy a solution. We equally reject the military solution for Ulster. I felt today when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, that some of his ideas will be received with incredulity by extremists on either side. The hon. Member for Belfast, East revealed that when he spoke. One of the suggestions about a discussion with the Government of Eire was a suggestion which he could not contemplate, he said. There will be other ideas which the Catholic minority could not contemplate. To some degree my right hon. Friend's speech forced people to face up to realities. At the moment there is drift in the Government's policy. Whether or not they wish it, there is too much separation in the Government's aims.
Even if the I.R.A. is beaten, as has happened before it will return, because the I.R.A. is an endemic disease and has been over the last 50 years in Ireland. It does not die; it emerges from time to time. It emerged in this country from

time to time before the Second World War.
Relations with Ireland are illogical. When we were discussing the Immigration Bill introduced by the Home Secretary we discovered that the citizens of Eire are treated in this cauntry as if they were Commonwealth citizens. From the moment they arrive in this country this is so, and if they fill in a form in September then in the following February they have the right to vote here. They are aliens but, because of an accident of history—it may be deeper than that—they are treated as Commonwealth citizens.
There is no immigration control, and there have been many arguments about this going back to 1962, when the then Home Secretary was justifying the fact that there could not be such control on the Irish. The Home Secretary will recall that he discussed this matter at some length in Committee. A large number of citizens of Eire come to this country. This system brings great benefits to Eire. It provides it with the benefit of being a foreign country, which is a benefit maybe to its amour propre more than anything else, but at the same time its people get the benefit of being treated as Commonwealth citizens without the responsibilities, small as they are, which other Commonwealth citizens have.

Mr. Powell: I also remember that that Measure contains provisions for imposing just that control.

Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. What I am saying is that since the British Nationality Act was passed—even before then; going back to the days when Commonwealth citizenship was expressed in the words "British subject" and all that implied—there has been an illogical relationship between Eire and this country.
In all big cities in this country, my own not least, but probably even more so in Birmingham, there are large numbers of citizens of Eire, some recent arrivals, some of them going back for two or three generations, and many of them play a most important part in the life of the community.
There are trading arrangements between this country and Eire going back to the 'twenties and 'thirties. Indeed, if the Government get their way and Ireland


and this country go into the Common Market there will be arrangements which will bring the two countries closer together in economic terms.
The discussion today has shown that the relationship between us and Ireland is illogical. Let us not therefore try to find a logical solution to the Irish question, because I do not believe there is one. We might have to find—indeed, we shall find—an illogical solution. The last flames of the Irish question, which dominated this House for 50 years, can be seen in Ulster. We failed then. If we had had the wit, if we had had the wisdom, if we had granted home rule 30 or 40 years before it was obtained by military means, by civil war, with a county council type of government, who knows what the position might be today?
There were the political "gut beliefs" which had to be satisfied in this country, and which split the great political parties. Indeed, the very name of the Conservative Party when it is printed in full tells us what happened in the 1870s, or the 1880s. It is not surprising that Joseph Chamberlain came from Birmingham, and that he had been a Republican on one occasion. It may be that it was because he was a populist, because populism flourishes in the Irish situation.
Perhaps when we consider all that, we realise why we failed. We dare not fail on this occasion. It is our belief that the speech of the Leader of the Opposition today has lifted the debate above the level at which it has been in recent months. What we seek from the Government is a change of policy. We want the Government to take the initiative, but before that succeeds there must be a return to the rule of law and the abandonment of the present rules of internment.

9.28 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith): Although I warmed to the spirit of much of what was said by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), I hope he will not mind if I do not follow him on many of the arguments which he deployed but follow the example of my noble Friend and concern myself with military matters. It is this aspect which I should like to discuss because many military issues

have been raised, and my hon. Friend gave an undertaking that I would deal with these when I wound up the debate today. I hope that those hon. Members who have concerned themselves with important matters which were part of the debate on the Compton Report will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not go into those matters either.
The part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition which gave me the most pleasure was his praise for the qualities of the General Officer Commanding in Northern Ireland. I especially appreciated, and wish to be associated with, his comments about the political sensitivity shown by General Sir Harry Tuzo in discharging this most difficult task.
As the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said, the Army has one of the most difficult tasks that it has ever been called upon to perform in its history. Its rôle in this most difficult of circumstances demands courage, and the Army is certainly not short of that. But the situation demands other qualities as well which are not so readily associated with armies—patience, a deep understanding of complicated political and social factors, a restraint which calls upon soldiers to use only the minimum of force, and the emphasising of the impartiality of the Army's rôle, save in its attitude to those who would seek to destroy the lives of innocent people.
I know that there are people in Northern Ireland who, for one reason or another, say that the Army's rôle is not impartial. But I cannot emphasise too much that the Army and my right hon. and hon. Friends are determined that the impartiality, the fairness between one section of the community and another, should remain one of the cornerstones of the actions of the security forces in Northern Ireland.
The rôle of the Army, simply stated, is difficult to perform. It is to work for peace. It is agreed on both sides of the House—it was one of the points made by the Leader of the Opposition—that it is only in conditions of peace that real political and social progress can be made and the wounds of the past healed.
In the course of discussions on Northern Ireland, we rightly lay great


stress on the activities and sacrifices of the soldiers of the British Army. Sometimes the question is asked: what about Ulstermen themselves, both Protestants and Catholics? Do they play no part in helping to save lives and secure the stability of the areas in which they live? I therefore thought that it might be convenient for the House if I said a few words about those Ulstermen who play an important part in helping the security forces to discharge their duties. I am referring to the men who joined the Ulster Defence Regiment.

Mr. George Cunningham: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, that he does not intend to deal with any of the rather important points which have been made about the Compton Report in this debate?

Mr. Johnson Smith: Yes, the hon. Gentleman did understand me correctly. I said at the time that I hoped that he and others would acquit me of discourtesy. We have had a debate on Compton. The Government have made it clear that a Committee would be set up of three Privy Councillors. I should have thought that it would be wise to await their report, when no doubt a debate will be arranged so that it can be discussed and the House can decide what further action can be taken.

Mr. McNamara: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many men in the interim will be subject to the procedures laid down and condemned by the Compton Committee?

Mr. Johnson Smith: There is no interrogation of the kind mentioned in the Compton Report at present being conducted.
The Ulster Defence Regiment—

Mr. George Thomson: rose—

Mr. Johnson Smith: I have said that there is nothing that I can add to what has already been said in the Compton Report. But I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Thomson: With all respect to the Under-Secretary, we are in the middle of an important two-day debate on Northern Ireland. A number of my hon. Friends have made speeches about im-
portent matters arising out of the Compton Report. One very important matter, I understand—I did not have the good fortune to hear the speech myself—has been raised since the last debate on the Compton Report. The hon. Gentleman is responsible for the Army. The Army was responsible for the training of the people who were engaged in that form of interrogation in depth. The hon. Gentleman cannot treat the House in this way.

Mr. Johnson Smith: We have had a debate on this matter. The question has been raised. We are tending to go over old ground. If there are further points of a more political nature, they might be dealt with in what remains of this debate. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the presence of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who no doubt will return, if he thinks it necessary, in response to this debate, to the political implications which still appear to worry some hon. Members.
But we have had many questions about the more military aspects of the Army and the conditions which face the Army, and I am concerned to refer to these points in the remaining moments of this section of the debate.

Mr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Johnson Smith: I have a great deal of ground to cover. I know the point which the hon. Gentleman raised and I will do my best to answer it if I have time.
I know the concern which people have expressed about the rôle of the Ulster Defence Regiment. During the last two months or so the enlisted strength has increased by 30 per cent. This is an important point because people wonder to what extent Ulstermen are willing to undertake responsibilities for the security of their own country. Yesterday the strength of the regiment was 249 officers and 5,264 soldiers, a total of over 5,500. In addition, about 800 applicants have been accepted but not yet enrolled. A further 1,300 applications are being processed. Applicants are coming in at the encouraging rate of 250 a week—three times the rate which obtained during July and August.
We shall keep up our recruiting publicity and other recruitment activity, and we hope that many more applicants will apply to join this thriving, non-sectarian


force. It has got off to a very good start, and is playing an important part in our efforts to secure peace and stability in Northern Ireland.
I have just pointed out that 1,300 applications are still being processed. The House may think that this is a large number to have in the pipeline. We are doing all we can to speed up the recruitment processes, but at the same time we are anxious to ensure that every applition is scrutinised in a proper manner and that no unsuitable applicant is enlisted into the regiment. As I told the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) earlier today, there has been no change in the general policy of vetting recruits, as was explained to the House two years ago, and we intend to continue in this way.
With the very significant increase in the number of new applications in recent months, there has, perhaps understandably enough, been a drop in the overall proportion of Roman Catholics in the enlisted strength. This now stands at about 8 per cent. We want to see a significant increase in this percentage. I hope that more Roman Catholics will apply to join the regiment.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: indicated dissent.

Mr. Johnson Smith: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the regiment provides an umbrella under which it is possible for Catholics and Protestants to come together and unite. It is one of the most effective vehicles in which people can show their mutual trust in one another. It is not something to deprecate but an organisation which holds out hope for the future of people in Northern Ireland.
I can assure the House that we shall continue to pay particular attention to these important aspects in our efforts to go on building up the strength of the Ulster Defence Regiment. I have visited Northern Ireland to see how the regiment has been faring. I am convinced that it has a fine non-sectarian spirit, and we are doing everything we can to give it priority in such matters as clothing, vehicle protection kits and accommodation.

Mr. Stallard: I was shaking my head because I do not think the hon. Gentle-

man has dealt with the essential feature in Northern Ireland in relation to the Army. Does he accept that the Army's rôle has changed dramatically since 1970, when it could rightly be said that it was above the argument? It is now seen to be simply a force maintaining the discredited régime at Stormont. The hon. Gentleman has missed that point.

Mr. Johnson Smith: I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman repeats legend. What he has said is what some people want to think the Army is; they put it around every day. The hon. Gentleman should know better than to repeat a legend. The Army's rôle is the same as it ever was, and the hon. Gentleman knows that. Sonic people may think differently, but I cannot help the views of people who are misled or the fact that someone whose husband has been arrested and whose whereabouts are not known for a time turns on the Army which is discharging its duties as best it can. The Army's rôle is to protect people and the peace, and that cannot be emphasised too much.

Mr. Ernle Money: Like other English Members, I have had constituents shot down in cold blood in Ireland, and fiancées tarred and feathered. Would my hon. Friend accept that one of the things doing most harm to the morale of the Army is the constant sniping at them that occurs in the House?

Mr. Stallard: What a lot of rubbish the hon. Gentleman talks.

Mr. Johnson Smith: Criticism of the sniping variety does not help, but the Army's morale can stand sniping. I am not trying to criticise the motives of the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard).
I turn to the important rôle played by the Ulster Defence Regiment. I attach importance to the fact that it brings people of different denominations together It involves Ulstermen in working for their peace. We are giving all we possibly can to them in terms of physical and monetary aid so that they can discharge their duties effectively. We are building six new centres for U.D.R. companies. This is of importance to the people in Ulster. We have seen that the U.D.R. is fully equipped with B vehicles, with arms and with the clothing most


urgently needed for the winter. More money has been found for an intensified advertising campaign, and we are hoping to provide more rifle ranges and more permanent staff.
I am about to pay another visit to Northern Ireland, and I shall be having further discussions with the military authorities on the spot and with the Ulster Defence Regiment Advisory Council. which have played, and are continuing to play, such an important part in the affairs of the Regiment, especially in recruitment.
Side by side with conditions which affect Ulstermen serving Ulster and the Ulster Defence Regiment, there has been expressed over the past weeks and in to- day's debate a concern about the accommodation and conditions of service of the men in the Regular Army. There is no doubt that the rapid increase in force levels in Northern Ireland has produced problems. The fact is that Army units are there on active service, and much of the accommodation is inevitably of a temporary nature. Apart from the resident battalions, the units are there for short tours only, and during this time they are highly mobile. Moreover, for tactical reasons it is sometimes necessary for accommodation to be near the scene of operations to enable the unit to react as quickly as possible. The Army, therefore, has not always been able to choose accommodation which will provide the degree of comfort which we would like for our men. Much of it is dilapidated and in poor condition. But, once it is occupied, the men have made it weatherproof and as habitable as possible. But there is a limit to what can be done. We have, therefore, turned our attention to making money available for immediate improvements to make life a little more comfortable and to provide more temporary accommodation where this can be used.
My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence recently announced in another place that an additional £500,000 was being made available to provide improvements not possible under the normal procedures. The House will be glad to know that within the last 10 days a large part of this money has been allocated to such things as the improvement of cooking equipment and furnishings, the use of contract cleaning

to improve the interior of buildings, improved partitioning, repainting, cleaning equipment and washing machines. All these things and others will make life a little more comfortable in the winter months ahead. In addition, a swimming pool will be provided for a large number of troops in the Belfast area, and £75,000 has been set aside for local unit commanders to draw on for smaller and individual improvements.
As regards better accommodation, immediate steps have been taken to ship six Twynham huts and 26 mobile homes to Northern Ireland. A further 20 are to be despatched there soon. Arrangements are also being made to provide, on a contractual basis, a reserve of hutted accommodation at short notice to meet new requirements as they arise. Work has already been started on five new hutted camps, two of which will be completed by the end of next month.
To sum up, we shall be spending some £5 million more in 1972–73 than we would otherwise have spent on Army accommodation in Northern Ireland. In addition to the physical needs of the forces, a number of steps have been taken to provide better recreational facilities for off duty moments and to allow soldiers to get in touch with their families and friends at home.
A welfare agency staffed by the Women's Royal Voluntary Service has now been set up to give information about welfare amenities and facilities in Northern Ireland. We have allotted funds for the hire of civilian coaches for welfare and recreational purposes.
Of particular concern to hon. Members has been the question of soldiers getting back on leave and being able to do so by air as opposed to land or sea. With the help of British European Airways and other airlines, valuable air concessions are now available once every emergency tour of four months and once a year in the case of members of the permanent garrison. Other travel concessions have also been allowed.
To help the troops keep in close day-to-day touch with their families who have been left behind and with their friends and relatives in Great Britain, we have provided more coin-operated telephone boxes, and there are now over 80 of these installed in Army Camps in Northern Ireland.
I mention for the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) that I am looking into the possibility of reduced charges to the troops for telephone calls from these coin-operated boxes and we hope to be able to make suitable arrangements shortly, at the expense of defence Votes.
We are very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and to the Post Office for all the help they have given.

Mr. George Cunningham: I do not criticise the Minister for going into details, first because they are important to the troops involved and, second, because if hon. Members attend an important debate like this in such small numbers the House gets what it deserves. However, will the hon. Gentleman depart from these matters for a moment and return to a point he made earlier, when I understood him to say words to the effect that the methods of interrogation mentioned in the Compton Report are in suspense?
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the words the Home Secretary used on 16th November:
Interrogation cannot be stopped altogether, obviously, because interrogation and intelligence are fundamental to the fight against the gunmen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1971; Vol. 826, c. 220.]
Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the methods described in the Compton Report are in suspense pending the examination by the Committee of Privy Councillors? Can we take it that in the meantime the only methods permitted are, roughly speaking, those available for police interrogation in Britain?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I will not go further than my noble Friend. No interrogations are taking place in depth now. In any case, they were very rare. I do not think that I should say in advance what happens in a situation where it may be felt that a deep interrogation should take place. It is obviously true—I say this gladly—that Compton having reported in the fashion he has, the Government will have to take into account what Compton has said. I cannot say any more than that.

Mr. George Cunningham: So they might or might not be.

Mr. Johnson Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) raised the question of the use of the T.A.V.R. and asked that its members be allowed to play an active part in security operations in Northern Ireland. They are, after all, trained and disciplined reserve forces, keen to do their duty, with valuable local experience.
At first sight it might seem only natural that units of the T.A.V.R. should be used in Ulster. However, I must emphasise that the T.A.V.R. is not like the U.D.R. First, it is a reserve force and not a part-time local force. It is a reserve for the British Army as a whole. Its main rôle is to increase the Army's order of battle when called out for full-time service over a prolonged period of national emergency. There is no provision for the T.A.V.R. to undertake operational duties on a part-time basis only.
The U.D.R., on the other hand, is a local volunteer force specifically created by Parliament for security duties in Northern Ireland under legislation which allows its members to undertake operational duties either on a part-time basis—at night or at weekends—or on a full-time basis for emergency periods. Therefore, the two forces have distinctively different rôles and terms of service, and the legislation under which they operate is different. The extent to which members of the T.A.V.R. can involve themselves in the present situation must therefore be limited to protecting their own premises and other tasks that can form part of their training.
However, we have given thought to enlisting the valuable services of the disciplines of the T.A.V.R. members. Since a man cannot be a member of both the T.A.V.R. and the U.D.R., we introduced rules which would allow individuals to transfer to the U.D.R. with the minimum of dislocation. These terms were announced as long ago as 25th September. We shall do all we can to make arrangements for groups of T.A.V.R. members as well as individuals to transfer to the U.D.R. where there are places for them in the new units being formed, so that we can take advantage of their esprit de corps, if they wish to keep together to play their part in the current expansion; in other words, to


continue to serve together in one of the new units. I hope very much that men who are anxious to serve in the present situation will make use of these arrangements. Certainly, the U.D.R. will be able to make excellent use of their experience and qualifications.
With regard to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. George Cunningham), who has left the Chamber—

Mr. John D. Grant: He was disgusted. He walked out.

Mr. Johnson Smith: The Government do not believe in the imposition of censorship in the circumstances of Northern Ireland. It is for the Press, radio and television authorities to ensure that a proper sense of responsibility is exercised. If they fail to do so, I think that public opinion will not let them get away with it. Moreover, censorship can be self-defeating, in that people will cease to believe in the credibility of the news they see on television and read in the Press. The situation is not one that people are used to in wartime, with the troops in one area and civilians in another, with a great gap between them. Circumstances then are different, and it is easier to impose censorship.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm what I said today from my impression, that the Army emphatically does not want censorship of television or the Press?

Mr. Johnson Smith: I gladly give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. The Government do not want censorship, and the Army certainly does not. Indeed, some of the interviews given at the discretion of the local commanding officers have been part of the reason why people have gained confidence in the integrity of the Army.
On the whole I believe that a sense of responsibility has been shown in the reporting of events in Northern Ireland by the Press and television news reporters. People who ask for censorship forget the curious situation of urban guerrilla warfare. People in Northern Ireland, however vexatious they find life, expect to have their milk and food undiluted and also to have their news undiluted, and if anyone tried to dilute it they would find

ways and means of getting round it. I am sure that we are right to denounce censorship.
There have been lapses. Many people in this country with sons or husbands in the services are naturally incensed by hectoring interviewers. People are incensed when blatant propaganda put out by terrorists is clothed with authority when it is given unbalanced prominence on television. Producers and others who have a sense of responsibility must take account of the feelings of people with sons and husbands in the Services in Northern Ireland. Impartiality can never mean impartiality between right and wrong. To equate in moral terms the terrorist murderer and the soldier will not be accepted by the public.
It is remarkable that so far the results of bringing to our firesides every night a visual account of what has been happening in Northern Ireland, a visual account of a shooting war against ruthless terrorists in the streets of the cities there, has not been disastrous. All of us have in the back of our minds the memory of what happened to the American public at the time of Vietnam, and the rôle played by television in that. So far I think that the coverage, in spite of its faults, has—not only because of the interviews with the British soldiers, but overall—helped the British public to develop a deep and lasting respect for the integrity and discipline of the Army.
I have no doubt that the Army will not fail us but—I think that this is at the back of the right hon. Gentleman's mind, and it must have been borne in on him when he visited Ulster recently—the Army, those who risk their lives to save life, ask that we in Great Britain, who live in peace, should understand the enormous complexity of their task and the tremendous difficulties which it poses. They ask, too, that we in the House of Commons should strive earnestly, and be seen to strive earnestly and unitedly, to find a basis upon which people in all sections of the community in Northern Ireland may build their own peace, a peace which this time will be a lasting peace.

Mr. Victor Goodhew (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

AERODROMES (AIRCRAFT NOISE CONTROL)

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Civil Aviation (Designation of Aerodromes) Order 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 1687), dated 18th October, 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
The order refers specifically to Section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1971, and, as regards the noise provisions contained therein, it designates four aerodromes, Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Prestwick, to come within its scope.
The Under-Secretary of State will recall the gratitude of all concerned, expressed both in Committee and on Report during the passage of the Civil Aviation Bill, that the Minister had introduced an anti-noise Clause, and he will recall, also, that, especially on Report, there was much criticism of one aspect of it. It is to that aspect that I now turn with reference to the four airports specified.
Section 29 spells out the new directions to be given by the Secretary of State to limit or mitigate the effect of noise and vibration connected with the take-off and landing of aircraft at airports. The Secretary of State may order that the manager of an aerodrome shall provide at his own expense and maintain noise monitoring and measuring equipment around the aerodrome. The manager will have to keep records of the noise levels, and these records shall at all times be liable to inspection. If he fails to provide the equipment or to maintain it properly, he will he guilty of an offence and be liable to a fine of up to £50, and so on for every recurring offence.
The whole onus, therefore, under Section 29 is to be thrust upon the managements of the four aerodromes, Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Prestwick. Did the Minister consider the suggestion which we made, that fines should be imposed upon those who make the noise? Under subsections (2) and (3) of Section 29, the Secretary of State has the power to stop a noisy aircraft operator from

using an airport, and he has power to allow a noisy operator to use an airport but to lay down directions limiting his operations.
Airport managements will now have extra statutory responsibilities thrust upon them. If they fail in their duties in the respects I have mentioned—provision and maintenance of equipment, record keeping, and so on—they will be fined. Yet the noise creators are not being subjected to any fines at all. The Minister will recall that on Report I referred specifically to this point and said:
The Clause mentions the possibility of detaining an aircraft, but that is farcical. First, there have to be noise checks to establish that an aircraft has contravened the maximum P.N.B. level, whatever it may be, night or day; secondly, it has to be reported to the Secretary of State; and finally, he has to give a directive to the airport to detain the aircraft. Meanwhile there have probably been many breaches of the noise levels before that procedure has been completed. What then? There is no mention in the Bill of anything else that the Minister will do. We think that it would be far more logical and effective if at the outset the Minister made clear in legislation that those who contravened the set noise levels would be logged, as a result of recordings made on the monitoring equipment, and fined for every offence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th June, 1971; Vol. 820, c. 291.]
That briefly sums up my first point; that the order thrusts the onus on the management of the four aerodromes mentioned in the order, though as yet no fines are being imposed on the creators of the noise.
My second query relates to the order's strict limitation to four aerodromes. But what about the sufferers around, say, Manchester, Yeadon, Luton, Turnhouse, Glasgow and many more public major and local authority airports in this country? Why has the Minister restricted the order to so few—just these four?
If it is his intention to spread this power, may we be told tonight when he intends to do so? He will recall that in Standing Committee his right hon. Friend said:
The major airport licensed for public use is a quite different matter. Its existence and usage are questions of national, or at least of much wider than purely local significance. For such airports, under the B.A.A. we already have separate powers to control noise and numbers of flights. We propose extending these powers so that by Order we may designate any aerodrome licensed for public use to


which we may then apply the sort of powers we have at present over B.A.A. airports."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 10th June, 1971; c. 772.]
We want to know the programme for involving the other airports—that is, airports other than the four already designated.
My third query is about soundproofing. This is in respect of Section 29(9) of the Act. The Minister may say that the order is not specifically concerned with sound-proofing, but it relates wholly to Clause 29. The Minister said in Committee that the Department had power to impose on any aerodrome licensed for public use the same requirement for noise abatement and sound-proofing as it applied at Gatwick and Heathrow. A provision to that effect was introduced in Committee. This means that the Secretary of State already has power to extend sound-proofing schemes around many other airports.
What is he doing about this? We must bear in mind that some local authorities which own airports are themselves seeking statutory authority to institute schemes. What financial assistance will be forthcoming from the Government to help them in that respect? Indeed, it would be helpful to those concerned—every major airport in the country, and especially those run by local authorities—if he would say to what extent local authorities are being encouraged to introduce their own soundproofing schemes or whether he intends to use his powers under Section 29(9) of the Act to make plans for sound-proofing homes, schools, hospitals and so on to cover most of the major airports.
There is still a lot to be done. The Under-Secretary has already announced a restriction of night flights at Heathrow, and I welcome this, although it is a small advance, since night flights were restricted anyway, but this cut-back may be helpful.
There is an urgent need to look at all the airports in Britain. Will the Minister say to what extent he is prepared to fine aircraft operators for regularly operating noisy aircraft, to include more than the four airports, and how many more airports are soon to be involved? Finally, there is a desperate need for sound-proofing around many local authority airports to safeguard people's homes, schools,

hospitals and so on. What has he in mind? Those are the reasons why we decided to pray against the order tonight. We are in need of much more information from the Department.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I apologise for missing the first few minutes of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), but he was rather sharp off the mark. I think I have the substance of what he said and I very much agree with his points.
I am concerned from a constituency point of view in Putney about aircraft noise at Heathrow, but I also have another concern. Will the Minister tell us to what extent the introduction of the regulations laid down in Section 29 of the Act, from which this order stems, will improve the existing situation at Heathrow?
Measures to ameliorate the consequences of aircraft noise have been in force for a long time. Although these limitations have not been entirely ineffective, they have not been nearly so effective as I would have wished.
For many years I have had a suspicion that to some extent the control of aircraft noise is a public relations operation. Colour is given to this suspicion, by the emphasis which is placed upon take-off noise. The number of people who are affected by take-off noise is small, because aircraft take off very sharply and the noise is soon over, although it is loud. The main nuisance in my area is landing noise. I cannot help feeling that by constantly referring to this nuisance I may have had some influence in the matter, and I welcome the new limitation on night flights, although it is noticeable that the limitations are on take-off and not much is being done about landing noise.
There have recently been suggestions that something might be done to provide variations in forms of landing. For many years there has been a monotonous regularity about jet landings. They get ready to land about six to eight miles out, somewhere over Kensington. They get on course over Putney Bridge and from then on it is straight in down to the glide path. This is undoubtedly the simplest way of going about it. I do not believe that any of us would want


to introduce or ask for the introduction of anything which would decrease the safety of landing. It would be foolish if, in attempting to protect our citizens from aircraft noise, we were to submit them to the danger of aircraft crashes.
If that tragedy were to occur—and thank goodness it never has occurred over a residential area in London—not merely the people in the aircraft but the people on the ground would be subject to very grave danger. When we do something about noise control we must in no way worsen the safety factors.
One method of landing is known as segment landing whereby a plane comes in at 15,000 ft. and descends to a lower level at about three miles. It is understandable that pilots wish to approach very low and then come up high. There is rather a tendency to want to approach the 3,000 ft. level from 2,500 ft., as anyone who has anything to do with aircraft knows. It is possible by varying landing requirements for aircraft to come into the landing area from the side. I am putting this in laymen's language to make it more intelligible. Approaching the glide path in a direct line from eight miles out it is possible to come in at an angle and then to set the plane up to make a final landing at about three miles out. I should like to know whether this order will make it easier to introduce that sort of regulation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley is on the ball when he says that no matter what sort of regulations we lay down, unless there is some penalty for infringement, some method of enforcement, we can regulate until we are black in the face.
We are told that the number of infringements at Heathrow are small but I doubt the validity of some of these statistics. Once again, they generally relate to take-off noise, whereas we are concerned with landing noise. It has been found that the Board of Trade has been reluctant to set out to measure landing noise. A variety of excuses are given but none has ever seemed to get over the fundamental point that the Board of Trade ought to want to know what is the landing noise.
If it seems not to want to know, then the suspicion arises in the lay mind that

the reason is that the Board of Trade does not want to do anything about it. I hope that the Minister can allay these suspicions and tell us that when he gets these powers he will introduce measures concerned with landing noise so that this problem, which has grown worse over the years, because of the obvious increase in traffic, can be dealt with.
Much of the traffic at Heathrow is not of the passenger variety but is freight traffic, a large amount of which, if the Authority were so minded, could be dispersed. We all know that there is no answer to this problem other than the dispersal of aircraft to airports where noise is no problem—in other words, to airports where landing is carried out over the sea. This is why we are anxious to see the third London airport constructed as soon as possible.
The whole question of noise is related to people. It does not matter how much noise is made if there is nobody there to hear it. If an aircraft lands over the sea and hardly anybody is in the vicinity, there is no problem. But it is a very different matter when, as in the case of London, thousands—perhaps even millions—of people are seriously disturbed in their daily lives. This disturbance is particularly relevant in hospitals and schools. I have had complaints from colleges of education in the Roehampton area, which sometimes cannot continue their training courses because of the aircraft noise. In the summer they have to stop their instruction every three minutes. This is the sort of problem that we face.
It may be said that no serious ill-health is suffered. I am not too sure about this. What certainly is suffered is a degree of inconvenience which approaches ill-health. I hope that by using these powers we shall turn the corner and begin to see a real improvement rather than allow the problem to get worse as time goes by. I hope that the Minister will deal with some of these points and be able to give the assurances for which we ask.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: I wish to join my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) in supporting this order. Like my right hon. Friend, I too feel a little uneasy that the Minister is not likely to use the powers which were


sought by the Civil Aviation Act, 1971. On that occasion when the Bill was going through Standing Committee the Minister sought by Section 29 particular powers which replaced some of the powers in Section 14 of the 1965 Act. The Clause was then commended to us on the lines that Section 29 gave clearer and more specific provisions to enable the Government to take action on this subject.
It is important that the Minister should use this power with a clear determination to make sure that airline operators comply with noise abatement requirements and that where there is infringement something is done to limit the amount of noise that is caused.
The main point to be satisfied is that there are adequate checks taking place at all these aerodromes. We must be confident that the Minister is using his powers of investigation in that way. Although these provisions are good as far as they go, I feel that the Minister should assure the House that he is making the necessary demands on aircraft manufacturers. Clearly, if the technical limits of noise in the manufacture and design of aircraft are not satisfactory, then the powers will not be adequate in providing the necessary safeguards. We also have to be fair to the airlines, which are engaged on an economic venture. They have to balance the demands of air travellers and the technical requirements of aircraft against the demands of people on the ground, especially those who live in the vicinity of airports.
In its progress through Committee stage, the principal Measure gave the Minister an opportunity of warning the Committee of the limit of the powers which he then sought. In the course of the Committee's sixteenth sitting, he said:
Despite the whole gamut of noise abatement procedures … at Heathrow and Gatwick, for example, we succeed only in holding noise in check, not in reducing it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 10th June, 1971; c. 776.]
That is a very valid point, especially from the point of view of the technical ability of aircraft manufacturers to reduce noise levels.
On the assessment of air space policy in the future, apart from wanting aircraft with higher technical performances, the public will want to be satisfied that

we are doing everything possible to reduce the noise levels with which people have to contend. For that reason, we seek to encourage the Minister to be more tough and demanding by making sure that aerodrome owners modify their practices or, if they refuse, that they incur the full rigours of the Section.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) reminded the Minister that in many parts of the country intolerable burdens were imposed upon local communities. As I said earlier, the interests of local communities have to be balanced against the public interest and the interests of aerodrome owners and airline operators.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) has been complaining for a long time about noise levels at Luton. I should like to know whether Luton is covered already by the controls of other measures.
I wish to put one or two questions to the Minister. First, is he satisfied that manufacturers are doing everything possible to decrease noise in aircraft performance? Is the Department helping technically, financially and in other ways, to encourage manufacturers to speed up their noise abatement procedures?
Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that everything possible is being done with the powers that he has to reduce noise levels at aerodromes? I know that R.A.F. stations are not covered by this measure, but in my constituency there is such a station at Syerston in Nottinghamshire which has managed to reduce noise levels quite suddenly by being closed down. It is now on a care and maintenance basis, and it seems that mothballs are more effective than earplugs in reducing noise. I hasten to add that it was not closed for those reasons. We do not want to be as extreme as that, but where technical progress can be used to reduce noise, the prevention measures can be made more effective.
I should like to know what further consultations are going on at aerodromes which are not covered already by noise restrictions. Will the hon. Gentleman get a move on in this direction, and will he assure us that everything is done to check noise levels all the time?
Can the hon. Gentleman also say what action is being taken under Section 29(4)(c), which provides:
if it appears to the Secretary of State that an aircraft is about to take off in contravention of limitations imposed in pursuance of the preceding subsection any person authorised by the Secretary of State … may detain the aircraft for such period as that person considers appropriate. …
That is a provision which it may be difficult to enforce, but what has the hon. Gentleman done to ensure that aircraft which are causing a nuisance after inspection and before take-off are detained? This is probably a severe way of dealing with the problem, but it is one which has to be held out as a possible inducement to aerodromes, to manufacturers and to airlines to reduce noise.
The House must accept that noise which annoys ought not to be allowed. We would support the Minister if he came down much more heavily on the human side of his job rather than on the side of the economic factors. And even if he came down heavily with a thud that is the kind of noise which we would appreciate hearing in the future.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Neville Sandelson: I am speaking tonight briefly for the first time on this subject in the House, and I am speaking for thousands of constituents who live in residential areas in close proximity to Heathrow and their families who are among the worst afflicted in Britain by aircraft noise and vibration, and indeed by aircraft pollution, which from my experience in this constituency in recent months I know extends even to poisoning and death of flowers which people attempt to grow in their gardens.
I have become increasingly appalled at the social consequences of this problem in terms of human suffering and illness, with the resulting loss of working hours and the total disruption of normal activity in factories, schools, churches, local courts, hospitals and, last and probably least, in my experience in the area at by-election meetings. One must consider also the strain imposed on ordinary families in their homes at the end of the day.
This unnatural disturbance arising from the vast traffic at Heathrow not only

spoils the lives of hundreds of families and affects the health of many, but is also very costly. It has been estimated by experts that the noise cost to the community around Heathrow alone is about £66 million a year arising from the loss in house values and lost amenity. It is therefore vital that urgent and effective counter-measures are taken to contain and eventually to reduce the nuisance.
I congratulate the Government on taking the powers outlined in the order, and also on the most welcome step which they have taken in banning jet aircraft from taking off at night from Heathrow from the beginning of April to the end of October next year. That and the measures proposed in the order represent a useful beginning in tackling the problem, but I hope the Government will recognise that it is only a beginning and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) said, there are no restrictions on the number of aircraft landings, although many of these have been measured as being twice as noisy as take-offs, and it still leaves the problem of quietening the big jets and the construction of the third London airport.
I want to refer briefly to the soundproofing of homes. A scheme is operating at Heathrow whereby the British Airports Authority pays 60 per cent., up to a maximum of £150, of the approved costs of sound proofing one, two or three rooms. The approved scheme includes, and must include, a ventilating system. But this scheme is an abject failure. It applies only to people who live in homes built before 1965. Only 5 per cent. of the people entitled to the grant have taken it up. To have any social value the grant should be in the region of 90 per cent., or even 100 per cent. Anything much less, such as the present grant limit, is utterly ineffective and simply enables authorities to say that they operate the scheme without actually doing so. It is much cheaper to do it that way, but it is at the cost of much human misery and great social cost in other directions.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to the legal rights and remedies for legal nuisance which are at present denied to the victims of aircraft noise and vibration and other forms of nuisance under


Sections 40 and 41 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. Now that practicable noise suppression devices are available and other noise reduction procedures can be used, surely it is time to restore the public's right to sue for avoidable nuisance. This is permitted in some other countries, and it may be required by the Treaty of Rome. I do not have time to develop this theme. I would simply ask the Minister whether the Government contemplate amending existing legislation which deprives individuals of the right of taking legal action for nuisance against aircraft operators.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Would my hon. Friend accept my compliments on having just uttered the first reasonable argument that I have ever heard for joining the Common Market?

Mr. Sandelson: I am most obliged. Knowing my hon. Friend as well as I do, I take that as a very grand concession, although I would on other occasions proffer other arguments.
I hope that the Minister will consider amending existing legislation which deprives individuals of their rights here. This statutory power not only deprives the many sufferers around airports of some way of seeking redress: it also removes a necessary incentive to the aircraft industry to develop quieter engines and procedures. The magnitude of the current jet flights was never contemplated when the 1949 Statute was framed. I speak tonight for all my constituents in urging the Government, having at last made a useful start in aircraft noise control, to press on with other and even more drastic measures to alleviate this environmental horror in the lives of so many people.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: I will not occupy time in dealing with the technicalities of aircraft noise and ways of alleviating it. We all recognise its existence and know that there are ways of dealing with it. This legislation is a method of dealing with the problem. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), I am concerned about the limitations of the order in that it applies to only four aerodromes. I represent a constituency in

Leeds. Fortunately my home is not affected by the noise from the Leeds-Bradford Airport. Nor is my constituency affected, but, like most hon. Members who represent the City of Leeds, I have been subjected to tremendous pressures over many years because of the noise from that airport.
There has been considerable opposition to the extension of the airport, largely because of the noise factor. am sure that many of the opponents of the extension would have been prepared to withdraw their opposition had they been confident that steps would have been taken to try to alleviate the problem It is regrettable that the Leeds-Bradford Airport has not been included in the order.
We are all aware of the environmental problems which confront society, and aircraft noise is one of the most prominent and difficult to deal with. But it can be dealt with, and the order represents an attempt to deal with it. I see no reason why the Leeds-Bradford airport should have been excluded, because there are many factors involved, such as the question of the residential areas close to the airport and domestic, educational and business problems. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will reconsider the limitations imposed in the order.
It would be interesting to know—and I hope that the Minister will answer this point—what pressures have been exerted on him by the Leeds and Bradford local authorities, because I am sure that they also have received numerous letters from and been subjected to pressures by people to try to alleviate the problems which arise from aircraft noise. It is not just a question of the noise itself; it is the physical and mental strain which it imposes on people. Whatever their age. they are affected by it.
I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that he will consider the possibility of extending the order. I know that it is not always easy for a Minister to do this, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give an undertaking that this matter will be looked at very carefully and that he will give some indication of when he is likely to extend the order to cover areas such as Leeds and Bradford.

10.36 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): This has been a helpful debate. I agree with virtually every hon. Member about the underlying issue, namely, the need, which the Government recognise as much as hon. Members opposite, to minimise the nuisance, annoyance, inconvenience and damage to the quality of life caused by excessive aircraft noise.
I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson). He referred to by-elections. I can remember speaking in his constituency during a General Election. I do not know whether my theme was aircraft noise, but I know that the whole of my speech was, to the delight of the hon. Gentleman's supporters, drowned by aircraft noise. I note carefully what the hon. Gentleman said about the effect of Section 40 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. He would not expect me to propose changes in legislation in the course of a debate on this very limited order, but perhaps I can make a general passing comment. The situation does not seem to be any better in countries which do not have legislation on this matter. However, we shall study carefully what the hon. Gentleman said.
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) concentrated on the question of landing. I can assure him that we know the levels of landing noise. We want the maximum degree of knowledge on this subject, but we do not need to measure every aircraft for noise in circumstances when measurement cannot influence the level of noise which is determined by the need to keep aircraft on the glide slope. I understand that the Report of the Noise Advisory Council recognised that little can he done about landings at present, but we are investigating better methods of approach. However, I warn the hon. Gentleman that international acceptance would take some time. We are investigating the question of curved approach, though it is doubtful whether such an approach could do much more in Landon than transfer the noise to somewhere else.
We are considering all these matters. They are perhaps more difficult than meets the eye. Generally, the limitations

on take-offs have an effect on the number of landings—not necessarily diametrically opposite the same number, but I am advised that they should certainly reduce the number of landings, though not necessarily proportionately.
The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) asked about the position of manufacturers. I am satisfied that manufacturers are fully siezed of the problems involved in maintaining the environment generally. From my conversations with them about this matter, I have found that they are extremely alert to the problems. In any event, the Aircraft Noise Certification Order requires all new types of subsonic jet aircraft to meet specified noise levels, which are set at about half as noisy, weight for weight, as the existing types.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to Section 29(4)(c). This relates only to the provisions of subsection (3), that is, where an operator is about to take off a greater number of times than the Minister has specified under the Statute. But we take note of the hon. Gentleman's point about that.
I shall come to the more general points raised by the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason).
The order has been put before the House with the specific purpose of designating the four aerodromes owned and operated by the British Airports Authority where the measures that are already in force can be given the sounder legal backing provided under Section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1971. Up to the present and until in due course Section 14 of the Airports Authority Act, 1965, is repealed, these measures could rely on the powers given to the Minister by that Section. Although that Section in the 1965 Act gives a wider scope for giving directions to the Authority to control noise and vibration, it is less detailed and explicit than those now available. In several small and important respects the new Act improves on the old.
Under subsection (1), we have explicit power to direct airline operators to comply with our operational noise abatement requirements. If necessary, therefore, in the case of continued infringement of maximum noise levels, we could require an airline operator to modify certain operational features like take-off weight,


by way of corrective action. Under subsection (2) we can direct the airport manager to withhold facilities from an operator to whatever extent we specify for non-compliance with subsection (1). This again provides for a more graduated response to infringements than the present—under the 1965 Act—all-or-nothing power under Section 14 of the Airports Authority Act to restrict the use of an aerodrome to those complying with our noise requirements.
The right hon. Member for Barnsley has told the House, as he did during the Report stage debate last summer, that he was dissatisfied with these provisions and would like to see explicit penalties provided against aircraft operators who infringe noise requirements. The House rejected that course then, when the matter was fully debated, and I and my right hon. Friend remain unrepentantly of the view that the House was right to do so. Flying aeroplanes is a highly skilled and complicated business, and becoming the more so every day, as the right hon. Gentleman knows. It is made no easier by requiring pilots to carry out the added tasks involved in following noise abatement procedures. We must and do allow them to judge when, in the interests of safety, they will have a need to abandon these procedures to concentrate wholly on flying the aeroplane safely. I would not wish to allow the prospect of criminal proceedings and fines to colour their judgment in any way in these circumstances.
However, we must ensure that our procedures are observed. I hope the House will be reassured to know that, without the penal sanctions that the right hon. Member would like us to use, the record shows only an insignificant proportion of infringements of procedures. I believe this to be due to the close co-operation that has grown up between the airline operators, the Airports Authority, and the Department in making noise abatement a common cause rather than from the threat of penalties.
Nevertheless, the threat of a penalty has always been there in the power under the Airports Authority Act to require the exclusion of those who fail to comply. We have never used that power, for it was a very blunt instrument. It is a power which if used would have hit the airline in question with an economic

severity totally disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence.
It might be argued that the sanction therefore lacked credibility. Apart from the fact that the infringement record gives no support to this argument, I would draw attention again to the more graduated response that is now possible under subsection (1) of the new provisions. This should finally remove any lack of credibility that there may have been and provide for corrective action, if necessary, in a more effective form.
I turn now to the points made by the right hon. Member for Barnsley and other hon. Members about the number designated in the order. I have explained why the order is limited to those aerodromes where the Department has already intervened, using powers that were similar in scope, though related only to aerodromes owned by the Airports Authority. The question whether other aerodromes should be designated is and will remain under continuous review by my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade has told the House recently of the ban on summer night jet movements at Heathrow next summer. He said that, while he was dealing with the worst noise situation around Heathrow, he would be considering such places as Luton and Manchester, where problems similar in nature, though less acute in degree, are known to exist. Other places where the problem is probably less difficult than the situation at those two places will be carefully considered by my right hon. Friend.
Responsibility at these places lies with the local authority owners and we think that it is right that those authorities should decide from their local knowledge what is right for their citizens and neighbours. However, my right hon. Friend's statement was a clear indication that we are ready to intervene there and elsewhere with the powers we now have should this be necessary.
I turn finally to the question of soundproofing. The Airports Authority Act, 1965, empowered the Minister to make a scheme for the provision of grants towards the cost of sound-proofing of dwellings in the vicinity of B.A.A. airports. A scheme has already been made and has operated around Heathrow for some years. I have not heard quite such


serious strictures on the efficacy of that scheme as those made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Sandelson), but we will carefully consider the hon. Gentleman's criticisms.
These powers have been extended, by amendments of Section 15 of the Airports Authority Act which became effective on 1st November, 1971, to empower the Minister to make schemes at any aerodrome designated under the provisions of Section 29 of the 1971 Act. This power is only one of the many measures of mitigation of disturbance that would be available for consideration in any case where we judged it necessary to invoke our powers of designation. Exactly which measures we introduce and their extent will be the subject of consultations with the interested parties, as required under the Acts. I assure the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen) that there will be continuing consultations with his local authority as with others on this issue.
We have concentrated in the first instance on places where the level of noise is most intolerable. We have in this modest order started with the designation under the Act. We shall continue the process after due consultation as and where we consider it necessary. The order is a step along the road we are all seeking to walk along at greater or lesser speed towards minimising nuisance and annoyance to people from aircraft noise. Therefore I hope that the House will approve the order.

Question put and negatived.

CROWN COURT RULES

10.51 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Crown Court Rules 1971 (S.I., 1971, No. 1292), dated 3rd August 1971, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th August, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
We are about to discuss the first set of rules under the Courts Act, 1971, in respect of the new Crown Court, which will come into operation at the end of 1972. I make no apology for bringing the rules before the House. Not only

are they a departure in practice in bringing together a series of rules on criminal practice and procedure, but they also represent a beginning, a sort of hors d'oeuvre for the main meal to come.
In our consideration of the Act in Committee, I said, when we were discussing the Clause concerned, that it was desirable that
all the matters which come within the heading of practice in the Crown Courts should be incorporated in the rules, even if they form part of earlier Statutes which are not repeated or re-enacted in some way, so that we do not have to look in two places—Archbold in the text, and the Crown Court rules—in order to find what is the rule or what are the different rules on a particular topic.
I recognise that the process of incorporating all such matters into the rules may not be put into operation immediately; it may take time for the Rule Committee … to collect the various procedural matters which are at present dealt with in other ways. But I hope that the Government will accept the principle that gradually we should embody within the rules the complete code of procedure dealing with the Crown Court rules.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, then in charge of the Bill in Committee, said in reply:
It is certainly hoped that as much as possible will go through in the rules made under the Clause, and what he"—
the hon. and learned Gentleman was referring to me—
has just said is the intention of the way in which it should work in practice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 11th February, 1971; c. 202.]
In these rules a number of matters are dealt with, particularly those specifically referred to under the provisions of Section 14(2), and perhaps a little wider than that. They appear to be very much a beginning. I hope that the Attorney-General, whom I welcome back from his travels, will be able to give an assurance that what his hon. and learned Friend said would happen is in process of taking place and that gradually we shall see a complete body of criminal practice and procedure incorporated in a Crown Court White Book, as it were, which it would be easy for the practitioner to look up without having to go from one work of authority to another to find the practice and procedure in relation to a particular matter.
Perhaps in that context I might refer to one aspect of the rules. I observe, and I welcome, that in rule 7, governing


notices of appeal to the Crown Court, it is provided that the period for notice of appeal shall be 21 days. In Part II of Schedule I there are amendments to various enactments the effect of which is to alter whatever be the period for appeal set out in those enactments to the common period of 21 days. I take it that that is the effect of Part II of Schedule 1.
While it is desirable that there should not be a different period in respect of different appeals, I hope that when we advance a little further towards having a Crown Court White Book we shall be able to discover these matters in some easier way than by cross-references under the Schedule to other enactments telling us that in each of these we must substitute "21 days" for "one month", or whatever the period may be. I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will readily agree that that is a difficult and unsatisfactory way of achieving a general rule.
There is one other general matter, namely, the bringing into operation of the new procedure and the new court. I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to tell the House a little about how matters are proceeding. We are now within not much over a month from the day on which the Crown Court will come into operation. We have not heard much about it since the Act became law, and it would be valuable if he could tell us what progress has been made and whether any difficulties have been encountered.
Now, a question regarding the new-style recorders. I am one of the old-style recorders whose term of office will come to an end at the end of this year. The noble Lord the Lord Chancellor has made certain rules and conditions for the new-style recorders—perhaps, rather less flexible than those of us who read the Beeching Report expected—and, in particular, a rule that a new-style recorder must undertake that he will be available at some specific period in the future for not less than a consecutive fortnight. To what extent, if at all, has that acted as a brake on the supply of new-style recorders of the quality one hopes will be secured? It is extremely difficult for the busy practitioner, even with the qualification which the Lord Chancellor put upon

that condition, to give such an undertaking.
I raise the question for this reason. I understand—the Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong—that, although the Lord Chancellor imposed that rule when he invited applications for the posts of new-style recorder, in at least one of the new circuits potential applicants have been told that, in practice, the rule will not be followed and that, if they are unable to fulfil the condition, they will be able to call upon other new-style recorders to fill the gap created by their inability to comply with the requirement to give a consecutive fortnight.
If that be so, it would seem to suggest that there has been some difficulty in attracting the appropriate numbers and quality of applicants. Moreover, it would seem unfortunate that there should be one rule in one circuit area and a different rule in others. One hopes that the rules will be the same throughout. Perhaps the Attorney-General will say something about that in telling us generally about progress towards the establishment of the new court.
I come now to some more detailed points. I apologise to the right hon. and learned Gentleman if any of them take him by surprise, and I assure him that, if they do, I shall be happy to have an answer in writing later if he cannot give it now.
Rule 4 covers certain dispensations from the requirements governing the composition of the court, and paragraph (2) provides:
The Crown Court may at any stage continue with any proceedings with a Court from which any one or more of the justices initially comprising the Court has withdrawn"—
that seems perfectly sensible, but it goes on—
or is absent for any reason".
I find that difficult to follow because it would appear to suggest that a justice could be absent for a time and then return and still take part in the decision. I cannot believe that that is the intention. If it is not, why are those words included?
Rule 5 deals with disqualifications of justices from sitting in the Crown Court on hearing of appeals in matters on


which they have adjudicated or proceedings on committal for sentence. We welcome this provision, which follows largely what my hon. Friends suggested in Committee, although perhaps it does not go as far as we suggested.
I have only one matter of detail to put in this connection. The Attorney-General will observe that the disqualification applies in the case of committals under Section 28 or Section 29 of the Magistrates Courts Act, 1952—and that is for borstal or indictable offences which are tried summarily in the case of defendants over 17—but in Rule 5, as distinct from rule 3(4), there is no provision for bringing in Section 67 of the Mental Health Act, although one would have thought that the same principle would apply to the disqualification in relation to Rule 5 as in relation to the hearing of an appeal under Rule 3(4). Is that an inadvertence or is it intentional?
We welcome rule 6. The effect of this rule and Schedule 1 is to provide a general period of 21 days for appeals, and I have already suggested that we might in future get rid of the cross-reference procedure. But if 21 days is right in respect of an appeal of any kind to the Crown Court, whether from the magistrates' court or any other tribunal, I find it difficult to follow why, when we come to rule 21, which deals with the case of an application to the Crown Court to state a case on a question of law, it is considered that 14 days is an adequate time.
I would have thought that if one is dealing with a question of law and must make a decision, which no doubt in many cases would require advice from counsel, as to whether an application should be made for a case to be stated to the High Court, one would normally require more rather than less time than the period given, for an appeal from conviction or sentence from the magistrates court to the Crown Court. This may simply be following the present procedure. If so, I hope the Rules Committee will consider whether that length of time is not unreasonably short in the circumstances.
Rules 7, 8 and 9 refer to notice of appeal and abandonment of appeal. It is rather strange that Rules 7 and 9 both impose upon the appellant himself the

duty of delivering his notice, whether of appeal or of abandonment, not only to the court but also to the other party to the appeal. Why cannot that be done by the court? In Rule 8, provision is made that on receiving the notice of appeal, the appropriate officer of the Crown Court is required to give notice of time and place of hearing both to the appellant and to any other party to the appeal. In that case, why cannot the court at the same time inform the other party to the appeal of the notice of appeal? Similarly in regard to abandonment, which is covered by Rule 9, why cannot the court inform the other party to the abandonment?
I mention that in particular because the belief that before enactment of the Courts Act that was the law regarding abandonment under Section 85(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952. That was repealed, however, and for some reason this duty, which previously fell upon the court, has now been placed upon the appellant. It seems an unnecessary burden to ask the appellant to take over.
I have one small but, possibly, important point on Rule 17(2), which makes a provision subject to paragraph (8) of that rule. The Attorney-General will see that paragraph (8) does not exist. It appears as though this is an error for paragraph (7). Perhaps it cart be corrected in the reprinting of the rules. From reading the rule, it appears that it must apply to paragraph (7) concerning assignment of the Official Solicitor.
Rule 9 is a provision for which we on this side of the House pressed in Committee. It sets time limits both for the shortest possible period and for the longest possible period from committal to the time when the trial at the Crown Court should begin. Speaking for myself, the period of 14 days and eight weeks, respectively, seem to be reasonable and should ensure that the extensive delays which, unfortunately, occur from time to time are very much curtailed.
The only qualification on the period of eight weeks is that it applies unless the Crown Court has otherwise ordered. Thus the Crown Court has, apparently, an unfettered discretion to extend the period of eight weeks. I would have preferred that in those circumstances, if the court exercises that power, it should be required to state the reasons for doing so. It


may be that this can be required by a practice direction. I suggest that it would be a valuable piece of procedure, because the situation might arise that it became almost automatic for the Crown Court to order otherwise if it found that it was inconvenient for the trial to begin within the period of eight weeks.
These points with which I have been dealing in the second part of my remarks are admittedly matters of detail, but I think it is right that we should examine this first set of rules with some thoroughness and care because they are the precursor of what we hope will be something very much larger and more fundamental. Section 14 of the Act provides that the Crown Court rules may be made for the purposes of regulation and prescribing, as I understand it, the whole procedure and practice to be followed in the Crown Court. We hope that it will not be long before we have rules going as widely as possible. In the meantime, we welcome the rules now before us as a first instalment.

11.17 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): One of the quirks of our procedures is that the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), while welcoming these rules, in the design of which he has played some part, has to pray that this House should immediately dismiss them. He has rightly said that this gives an opportunity for examination and discussion of the first of the rules which herald the new procedure which will begin in January. I share the belief that it is right that we should look at them and that I should be able to tell the House a little of the general matters as to the organisation, both in respect of judges available, particularly the new style recorders, and in respect of accomodation and staff before coming to the details of the rules.
These rules are to assist in the bringing into force of this new procedure, which will be strange to many people. I can tell the House that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is reasonably satisfied with the arrangements that have been made and which have been proceeding in preparation for the start of the new system in January. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the recorders who will be those part-time judges who will

support the High Court judges and the Circuit Bench. A total of 175 judges of different descriptions will become circuit judges. Some 25 appointments have been announced and more are under consideration. They will form the main body of those who will carry out the duties. of the Circuit Bench in the Crown Courts. They will be supported by the new style recorders. There will be 275 recorders, of whom 175 have been announced and about 90 or 100 are to be announced. Undertakings have been given by those who have accepted that they will give a minimum of 20 days. It is particularly gratifying that many of those have public-spiritedly offered to give more than 20 days. The more recorders who can give more than 20 days the better for the whole system. It is with reasonable confidence that I can tell the House that as far as the part-time judiciary is concerned, which depends upon the public spiritedness of the new style recorders, the situation looks to be satisfactory.
Accommodation has always been a problem. The need for more courts has been spoken of by Attorney-General after Attorney-General and Lord Chancellor after Lord Chancellor.
Recently there has been a considerable increase in emergency accommodation, particularly in and around London. There has been provision for ten courts, three further courts by Easter and ten more thereafter. The long term building programme is indeed long term and must be so, but it is right to say that local authorities have been helpful and co-operative. In regard to the right of user given by the Act, arrangements for the sittings of the High Court and the Crown Courts have all been made for next year without the necessity to give directions.
My noble friend's approach on acquisition is that there should be agreement rather than the use of compulsory powers. The situation appears to be satisfactory in the coming year, always hoping that the extra courts will be available to be used to cope with the serious problem which remains in the dispatch of criminal business in and around London.
The question of staff in the unified service which has been introduced is always a problem since, of necessity, it deals with human beings many of whom have had former service. There is a


natural desire on their part to ensure that their terms and conditions of service do not deteriorate. Assurances have been given and there has been an undertaking that if cases of hardship arise under the new arrangements providing for the new court service, they will be looked at. On balance the new service should give greater opportunities and in that respect has attracted people to it. It would appear there has been a response among former officers of courts to enter the new service and that recruitment has been proceeding satisfactorily.
I come to the rules which will have to be carried out to ensure that the new system works. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he hoped to see a complete outline of criminal practice and procedure set out in a Crown Court White Book. Perhaps at some time when these rules appear they will be consolidated into a kind of practitioner's textbook. This will avoid the kind of difficulties that arise when a large amount of cross references are involved. Therefore, we shall hope to see the creation of the kind of White Book which has been suggested.
The other general point put by the hon. and learned Gentleman was in regard to the notice of appeal of 21 days. I will deal in a moment with the 14 day period laid down for a case to be stated, which is another aspect of the matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman generally welcomed the fact that there should be some uniformity in the matter of notice of appeal and the 21 days as provided by the rules.
I wish to point out that there are two misprints in the rules, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to one of them. In Rule 17(2) there is a wrong reference to paragraph (8) when it should be paragraph (7). Then there is a misprint, which is corrected on the front page of the rules, where "The Firearms Act" instead of appearing opposite Section 24, ought to appear opposite the words "In Schedule 5".
The rules set out the various provisions. Rule 4 provides that the court may continue to sit, where it consists of a judge and justices, if one justice withdraws and even if both withdraw. It provides also that if one of them is absent for any reason, the whole of the trial should not be prevented from continuing

because of that person's absence, as opposed to his conscious withdrawal. There is no provision that once a justice withdraws or is absent, he can then come back and act as part of the court. Obviously that would be wholly wrong. Once a person has withdrawn or is absent, that is the end of his participation in the trial.
The hon. and learned Gentleman then raised a point about the Mental Health Act. This concerns Rules 3, 4 and 5. A committal made under Section 67 of the Act does not indicate the decided view on the sentence to be imposed, and therefore there is no reason why the committing justices should not sit. That is the reason for the slight difference there.
The hon. and learned Gentleman compared Rule 6 with Rule 21, dealing with the case stated and the period of 14 days. Rule 21 makes similar procedural arrangements to those in Section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1925 about applications to the Crown Court to state a case. The time limit is 14, days which is the same period as that allowed in the case of an application to a magistrates' court to state a case. It should be remembered that an application to state a case does not call for any more than that. The case has to be stated thereafter. This is really carrying on the old procedure whereas under Rule 7, there is a provision for 21 days in the case of appeal.
It is reasonable that an appellant should be required by rule to inform the other party. He is the person who, at that time, has had entered against him a verdict or decision of the court. The other party may be involved in expense if he is not advised at the earliest moment. If it is only done through the court, it means a delay of some 24 hours. Therefore, it is only reasonable that the appellant should be obliged to inform the other party.
The hon. and learned Gentleman thought that Rule 19, with regard to the time limit, was reasonable. This refers to the 14 days and the 8 weeks. I hope that we shall be able to report in the future that these time scales have been kept to. It is asking a considerable amount that they should be set in this pattern. We have done it deliberately. This is what we seek and what we hope will be obtained, because of the necessity


of having criminal justice properly expedited and dealt with within a reasonable time, so that a person who is accused should stand his trial without undue delay.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say whether statistics will be kept, in order to see the extent to which it is adhered to.

The Attorney-General: I do not know whether that is possible, but I shall bear it in mind.
As the finger moves on, all I say is that we shall take into account what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I commend these rules to the House. They represent the start of a new system, and I am sure that they will help that system begin to work.

Question put and negatived.

SCOTTISH AFFAIRS

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Scottish Affairs.
The Committee was nominated of Mr. W. H. K. Baker, Mr. John Brewis, Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne, Mr. Dick Douglas, Sir John Gilmour. Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison, Mr. George Lawson, Mr Ian MacArthur, Mr. James Sillars, Mr. John Smith. Mr. Iain Sproat, Dr. Gavin Strang and Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon.

Ordered,
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in the last Session of Parliament together with Memoranda be referred to the Committee:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to report from time to time and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time:

Ordered,
That Six be the Quorum of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint two Sub-Committees each consisting of not more than eight Members and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee:

Ordered,
That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; and to report to the Committee from time to time:

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees and reported by them to the Committee:

Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee.—[Mr. Speed.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Speed.]

UNEMPLOYMENT (BRADFORD)

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Torney: I make no apology for again keeping the House so late at night to talk about this terrible problem of unemployment. Bradford, part of which I represent, is in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and although we have had two recent debates on unemployment, one this week and one a little more than a week ago, there was not, in either of those debates, certainly not from this side of the House, a speaker representing a Yorkshire constituency.
A week ago the Chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside group of the Engineering Industries Association called for a more positive Government approach towards the regions, and warned that
unless something was done soon Yorkshire could become another Scotland or North-East.
My purpose tonight is to demonstrate to the Government the need for some immediate and urgent aid for the regions, with particular attention to areas such as Bradford, which have special problems. The aid for which I am asking must be in addition to the measures which the Government have announced recently for dealing with the national problem, because the situation is appalling.
I do not propose to say very much about the national situation because much has been said about it, and as unemployment continues to increase, as I think


it will for a little while at least, very much more must be said about it in this House. We must all try to get the appalling unemployment figures down.
The disastrous unemployment figure of nearly 1 million speaks for itself. I feel that one has to have experienced the scourge of unemployment, or to have been close to it, as I have during my lifetime, to understand the tremendous human suffering and the colossal loss of human dignity that is involved therein. I feel certain that the Conservative Party is not close enough to it, and has not that vital and real experience of it to appreciate what it means.
Yesterday saw a lobbying of Members of Parliament and a demonstration such as this House has not experienced since the black days of the 'thirties when unemployment exceeded 2 million. We must see to it that such a total is never reached again. After talking with my constituents, who came here yesterday from Bradford, I formed the very firm impression that never again would working people in this country tolerate the long years of degradation known to some of us and to some of our fathers in the bad and hungry 'thirties. The Government should take a very serious look at this feeling, which is deeply held not only in Bradford but in all the forgotten regions.
Bradford is of special significance because it is the home of woollen textiles. I am the first to acknowledge that, whatever the problem, before one can advance towards a cure one must undertand the underlying causes of the problem. Bradford, and the area of the West Riding around it, is the home of woollen textiles, an industry which for years has maintained a good export record. It has a very loyal work force, who serve the industry very well indeed. Hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that they produce some of the finest woollen materials in the world. These are workers whose skills are unsurpassed in the world and who have a good record of labour relations.
But, as a reward, they are now being thrown upon the industrial scrapheap. This is not the fault of these workers or of unemployed workers generally. I know

that over the years there has been far too much dependence upon this one industry. Indeed, almost a quarter of the working population of the City of Bradford works, or did work, in woollen textiles. There are, of course, some lesser industries—not lesser in the importance of the job which they are doing, because some very important small sections of engineering exist in Bradford, but lesser in the number of workers and in the size of the industries. When there is a slump and a contraction in woollen textiles, as at present, there is little or no alternative work for those who are put out of work by mergers, for example, and other changes. Mills are closing in Bradford at an alarming rate, Modernisation and mergers mean redundancies and despair.
Men who have worked in the industry all their lives, who are now reaching the evening of their lives, find at the age of 55 and over that they must face all the hardships of redundancy. What prospect is there for men at that age to learn a new job? A man spends all his life in the mill, from the time he leaves school, and he becomes skilled in the operative job which he is doing in the mill. In the latter part of his life, when he should be reaching a more restful period, he finds that he is no longer wanted in the job which he has learned. At the age of 55 or over one does not easily turn to learning a new occupation and new skills. In Bradford, even if one does learn new skills, there are no jobs available. The Yorkshire unemployment figure is higher than the national average and the Bradford figure is higher still—4·8 per cent., against the national 4 per cent. But the real rub is in the figure for men, the breadwinners—7·3 per cent. against the national figure of 5·5 per cent. This is the alarming situation which has led to this debate.
The Government could help by sweeping away red tape and the stock Civil Service answers by taking action and not hiding behind words. For a year now, Bradford City Council, Bradford Area Development Association and I have been trying to persuade the Minister for Transport Industries to make a considerable grant towards an interchange from the motorway at Staithgate Lane, so that we can build an industrial estate. This would not cure our


unemployment, but it would help to see that this terrible 7·3 per cent. does not get worse.
No transport Minister is here tonight, but I appeal to the Under-Secretary of State to show that he means business and to liaise with that Ministry. This is what we need if we are to tackle this problem. The Prime Minister might appoint a super-Minister to over-ride such weak arguments about the interchange as, "If I give way to Bradford, other towns will demand the same." I am asking for this red tape to be swept away.
The workers at English Electric's factory in Bradford, who are already on short time, are frightened that tomorrow the factory will shut. The Dick Lane foundry of English Electric is a case in point. It could close because the employers say that they cannot afford the equipment required under the Clean Air Act. I do not suggest we should ignore that Act, but something must be done by contacting these employers at the highest possible level to see whether some Government aid can be given to this firm to ensure that this factory does not close down. It would not give Bradford any more jobs, but it would prevent 300 or 400 men from adding to that 7·3 per cent. and making it as bad as in Scotland or the North-East.
Even the Rolls-Royce situation affects the Bradford scene. The firm of Hepworth and Grandage makes parts for Rolls-Royce and is owed a considerable amount of money. The firm has told me in writing that without this payment it will have to curb its activity in Bradford—which means more unemployment. The Government should do something about things like this. Talk is no good: we require some action.
The workshops for the blind in Bradford face possible closure. Blind workers were among those lobbying Members yesterday. We know how hopeless the position is for people afflicted by blindness. It is bad enough for someone who is able-bodied when unemployment is running at 7·3 per cent., but for blind people the position is even worse. I ask the Minister to promise me that representations will be made on this score in order to get things moving.
I do not want to take up the Minister's time, because I wish him to offer me

something worth while, and rather than put me off with glib excuses I would rather that he went away and studied the position and then gave us something to work on at a later date. I ask the hon. Gentleman to approach the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry who should, in turn, approach the Prime Minister and urge him to take steps to co-ordinate the work of all the Ministries concerned with employment. The Government should consider setting up a separate Ministry while this crisis persists. Such a Ministry would be charged to work in conjunction with the authorities in localities like Bradford.
It is no solution merely to hand out money. We need organisation as well. Therefore, the Minister should have consultations before a factory closes, putting many people out of work. I know that this is contrary to the beliefs of the Conservative Party, but surely the lame duck policy is now dead. Surely it is accepted that if we are to make a dent in this terrible problem we must do what I have suggested.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give me some real hope to take back to my constituents.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I should like to make a few positive suggestions.
We need a more flexible regional policy which takes into account earnings and environmental criteria as well as purely employment criteria. I urge the Minister to speed the review on this matter which is going on in the Department. May consideration be given to increasing the grants given under Housing Act, 1970, in areas like Bradford to the level of those given in development areas? Is it possible to increase the rate of grant for the clearance of derelict land from 75 per cent. for which we are eligible to the 80 per cent. which operates in development areas? Is it possible to bring forward certain Government schemes such as the one concerning the freight depôt at Low Moor and the transport interchange? Could more science-based industries be attracted to the area and the expansion of existing ones ensured by, for example, a production order for Concorde?
Overall, the Government's measures have done a great deal of good. For


instance, there has been an expansion in employment in the manufacture of colour television sets and in the service industries due to the halving of selective employment tax. The policy of self-help is bearing fruit. If one takes, for example, the schemes already announced by the authority under general improvement area declarations, only Birmingham and the London Borough of Haringey have schemes which comprise better clearances and improvement of more dwellings. So the County Borough of Bradford is already doing well. The Government's measures are encouraging. If a few of the suggestions of more flexible policies could be adopted, as the Hunt Committee suggested, our position would be further improved.

11.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I have very little time to reply to the debate. I have listened extremely carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) has said, as I have to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney).
It is some months since we discussed the situation in Bradford and I am glad to have the opportunity of returning to the subject tonight. I fully appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Bradford, South about current unemployment and I congratulate him on the vigorous way in which he presented his case.
On the rather party political note with which he started the debate, he can be assured that he and his hon. Friends are not the sole repositories of concern and anxiety, nor can he and his hon. Friends divest themselves wholly of responsibility for the level of unemployment that we have.
I deal quickly with the specific cases which the hon. Member was good enough to mention earlier. The question of the Staithgate Lane interchange is at present under Ministerial consideration within the Department of the Environment. Therefore, I cannot comment further tonight, but I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are conveyed to my right hon. Friends.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the question of alleged air pollution from a foundry. I understand that the problem

has not been brought to the attention of Alkali Inspectorate headquarters. But any further information or particulars that the hon. Gentleman is able to make available will, no doubt, assist in identifying the particular case, which will be looked at carefully.
On the question of difficulties of a particular firm, a creditor of Rolls-Royce, I cannot add further to the letter which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State dealing with aerospace matters wrote to the hon. Gentleman on the subject, but from my recent correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, he will not expect me to agree with the view concerning lack of diversity of industry in the Bradford area; nor does it mean that the Government are insensitive to the needs of the unemployed in his constituency or that we do not recognise the need in the area during the next few years for additional industrial employment. I shall return to that point later if I have time.
I had the pleasure of visiting Bradford during October 1970. It was during the dustmen's strike, but in spite of that I saw for myself some of the significant progress made on local initiatives, to some of which I have already referred in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West, in an Adjournment debate on 8th April. In the context of Bradford's problems, environmental problems overlap and react on those in the economic and social fields.
I commend the initiative which the Bradford Council has shown in many respects in the general improvement areas under the Housing Act, 1969, its plans for homes for old people and its general improvement in cleanliness.
Regarding dereliction, to which my hon. Friend referred, this is a major problem arising from the rundown of the old mills and warehouses. I once again draw attention to the fact that under existing legislation Bradford is eligible for 75 per cent. grants for clearance purposes. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment gives every encouragement to local authorities to make full use of these grants.
The question of assistance with renovation of dilapidated premises which are nevertheless still in use presents more difficult problems, but the Departments concerned are studying these problems.
The substantial drop in the number of unemployed insured persons, some 7 per cent., during the period from 1964 to 1969 is due primarily to the restructuring and modernisation of the wool textile industry. But this will ultimately bring real and substantial benefits to Bradford's oldest and most important industry, with its notable world-wide contribution to Britain's export trade.
I remind the House that the study of the wool textile industry published by the Economic Development Council foreshadowed a substantial reduction in the number of establishments and employees by 1975 as a result of evident changes in consumer demand and re-equipment with more productive machinery. The expected rundown has been accelerated by the general slackness in the economy, coinciding with adverse cyclical effects in the industry. Some further slimming down cannot be ruled out. It is, however, of prime significance that both employers and trade union officials in wool textiles have expressed confidence in the industry's future prosperity once immediate problems are overcome.
In other industries the drop in employment is due mainly to the need for rationalisation—much of it, I stress, on account of cost inflation, but this feature is certainly far more severe in other parts of the country, especially in development areas.
I am sorry to note that both the total unemployment and the male rate have risen during recent months. I recognise that this situation spells human hardship for the men involved and for their families, but they flow largely from the long-standing need to rationalise the textile industry together with the results of cost inflation in other industries, a feature which has its origins in the policies pursued by the previous Administration and which has characterised many other parts of the country to a much greater degree of severity.
We have operated a flexible and liberal industrial development certificate policy for the Bradford and Shipley district, with the result that refusals of I.D.C.s have been very infrequent: 77 I.D.C.s were issued in the period from the beginning of 1969 to the beginning of 1971 and only one was refused.
In the face of what I have been saying and what the Government have been doing, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, I do not accept any suggestion that the Government are either blind or deaf to the needs of the Bradford area. Figures relating to the spread of insured employees for the area as at June, 1969, show that although approximately one-quarter of these are engaged in textiles, almost the same number are engaged in manufacturing industries of a diverse nature. I repeat the Government's assurance that we fully accept the need for additional industrial employment, but plans must be related to a long-term strategy.
As to future prospects, the currently high unemployment level in the area is spread over several industries, and all these categories, and to some degree the wool textile industry, can expect to feel benefit from the general expansion in the economy. For example, colour television sets are made by a leading firm—Baird—in Bradford and the demand for colour television has risen sharply following my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's July measures.
Furthermore, despite difficulties in recent years, the wool textile industry is essentially buoyant and confidence in its future, including the prospects of expanding exports in a greatly enlarged European Economic Community, has been expressed by both employers and trade union leaders.
Local government reforms, too, should assist the area. So I do not take a gloomy view of Bradford's future. To do so does a disservice to the courage and initiative of the people in the Bradford area. For my part, I am convinced that when the national economy has strengthened, Bradford will be able to absorb the necessary further rundown of the wool textile industry without undue difficulty, as it has done in the past, and that greater business confidence will have proportionate effects in providing more jobs in the many other industrial activities of the area.
At the same time, the Government fully acknowledge that the present situation gives no ground for complacency. I assure the hon. Member and my hon.


Friend that we shall continue to keep a close watch on the situation in the Bradford area as a whole.

Mr. Torney: Mere words.

Mr. Grant: It does not inspire people to come to the hon. Gentleman's area if he is constantly and consistently run-

ning it down. It is far better to talk of some of the great opportunities that exist for industry in Bradford and the way in which it will benefit from the measures the Government have taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Twelve o'clock.